












1 



/? //*y 

*%)PV sC 


4 






















ADDRESSES of 

PRESIDENT TAFT 

n 

An 

on 

H h 1 

ARBITRATION 



WASHINGTON 









I 






4 







ADDRESSES OF PRESIDENT TAFT ON ARBITRATION. 


REMARKS OF PRESIDENT TAFT AT A BANQUET GIVEN IN HIS HONOR BY 
THE AMERICAN PEACE AND ARBITRATION LEAGUE IN THE BALLROOM 
OF THE HOTEL ASTOR, NEW YORK CITY, MARCH 22, 1910. 

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: In the first place, I 
should like to thank the American Peace and Arbitration League 
for the compliment of this beautiful banquet. I claim to be an 
expert in banquets. Therefore, when I say that this is a beau¬ 
tiful banquet and one of the finest that I have ever attended, I 
hope it may convey the superlative. 

In the next place, I should like to say that the significance of 
this meeting is not in the fact that the President of the United 
States is here seeking peace by arbitration, but it is that such 
a doctrine has been advocated by a Kentuckian, former Senator 
McCreary. 

I am glad to see about me here ambassadors of powerful 
countries and ministers representing the strength of Europe 
and of this hemisphere—all in favor of peace by arbitration. 
The truth is that the subject does not offer much opportunity 
for variety. We are all in favor of virtue; we are all in favor 
of goodness, and we are all in favor of peace; and as peace can 
be best maintained by arbitration and conciliation, of course 
we are in favor of it, even if we come from Kentucky—in favor 
of resorting to arbitration rather than to war. I say we all 
are, but I know there are some gentlemen who, in order to be 
unlike most others, favor war as a necessary treatment of a 
nation in order to develop its finest qualities, and I am not dis¬ 
posed to say that, as we look back in history, some of the most 
dreadful wars in history, notably that of our Civil War, could 
hardly have been avoided if we were to accomplish the good 
which that war did accomplish. But as a general thing we are 
all opposed to war, because war is hell. And when you have said 

3 



4 


Arbitration. 


that, and said that any means of avoiding it by arbitration or 
conciliation is to be sought, it seems to me that it is difficult to 
arouse a controversy on the subject. But my friend from Ken¬ 
tucky and I stand together in this—that because we are in favor 
of universal peace, and in favor of arbitration in order to secure 
it, that does not mean that we are in favor of one country giving 
up that which we now use for the purpose of securing peace, to 
wit, our Army and our Navy. 

I don’t want to seem inconsistent in speaking so emphatically 
in favor of peace by arbitration, and in using every effort that I 
can bring to bear on Congress to have two more battleships this 
year. I am hopeful that we may continue with that until the 
Panama Canal is constructed, so that then our naval force shall 
be doubled by reason of the connection between the two coasts; 
and then we can stop and think whether we wish to go further. 
Perhaps by that time there shall be adopted by general agree¬ 
ment a means of reducing armament. Certainly, whenever it 
comes, we will not be, I am sure, the power to interfere with 
that general movement. 

I am quite sure that the distinguished chairman has only 
yielded to that kindly feeling that he always has toward me 
except in a presidential election, in attributing to me the honor 
of being the first President or the first Chief Executive to speak 
at a public meeting in favor of arbitration. I know, or I feel 
confident, that there are many executive heads who have c 



the same thing, and who have longed for peace. The experdf 
of armament is working toward peace. The expense of war, I 
am sorry to say, is having greater weight in securing peace than 
the expense of lives. A nation does not lightly enter upon war 
now for two reasons: First, because the expense is so great that 
it is likely to lead to bankruptcy even if she wins; and, second, 
if she does not win the government or dynasty or whatever it 
may be that is in control of the government is likely to go down 
under the humiliation of that defeat at the hands of her own 
people. Those two things are working in a healthful way 
toward ultimate peace. 

Now, if we have a permanent court of arbitration—one to 
which we can easily refer all questions—the opportunity is 
likely to be seized upon—certainly to be seized upon by that 


Arbitration. 


5 


country that is in the contest to follow, if war is to follow, not 
quite prepared; and so, by its demanding or proposing a refer¬ 
ence to the court, it will put the other country in the attitude 
of desiring war—an attitude that I think no country would 
like under present conditions to occupy before the world. As 
a resort to this permanent court becomes more and more fre¬ 
quent, questions which can be submitted in the view of the 
nations will grow broader and broader in their scope. 

I have noticed exceptions in our arbitration treaties, as to 
reference of questions of honor—of national honor—to courts of 
arbitration. Personally, I don’t see any more reason why mat¬ 
ters of national honor should not be referred to a court of arbi¬ 
tration any more than matters of property or matters of 
national proprietorship. 

1 know that is going further than most men are willing to go, 
but as among men we have to submit differences even if they 
involve honor, now, if we obey the law, to the court, or let them 
go undecided. It is true that our courts can enforce the law, 
and as between nations there is no court with a sheriff or a mar¬ 
shal that can enforce the law. But I do not see why questions 
of honor may not be submitted to a tribunal, supposed to be 
composed of men of honor who understand questions of na¬ 
tional honor, to abide by their decision, as well as any other 
question of difference arising between nations. 

I do not know that I can quite agree with my friend, the 
<k Kentucky peacemaker ” as to the Monroe doctrine. 1 agree 
with the Monroe doctrine, but I think it has come pretty near to 
getting us into trouble a number of times. But we got over it 
without war, and still I think that was only because the Lord 
looks after children, drunken men, and the United States. 

Now, there is one question that I think is within the actual 
control of Congress, action upon which will promote the power 
of the Executive in preventing questions of embarrassment and 
difficulty between this country and other countries with whom 
we would be at peace. I am not sure how this will strike the 
Kentuck mind, because when we reach the Constitution and 
the division of power between the States and the United States, 
unless it involves an appropriation to the general welfare in 
the neighborhood of Kentucky, we on different sides of the 


6 Arbitration. 

Ohio River—because the Senator and I look at each other 
across the river—have different views. 

But I believe that the Senator, with his profound knowledge 
of constitutional law, will nevertheless agree with me that it is 
within the power of Congress to put in the hands of the Executive 
and in the courts of the United States the power on the one hand 
to prosecute and on the other hand to hear crimes denounced 
by Federal law, which consist in a violation of the rights of 
aliens secured by treaties made by the United States with other 
countries. With all the solemnity that goes with the making of 
our treaties—signed by the President, confirmed by the Sen¬ 
ate—we say to the people of other countries who come to this 
land: “ You shall be protected in certain rights; you shall enjoy 
them under the protection of the United States.” And then they 
come over here with that hope, with that security, and a con¬ 
spiracy is entered upon by some of our people to deprive them of 
these rights, and crimes are committed against them, and their 
representative at Washington comes to the State Department and 
says: “ Here are our citizens and our subjects who have come 
here under the protection of the treaty which you made, saying 
that they should enjoy all these rights, and they have been de¬ 
prived by violence of these rights. Now we ask you to fulfill 
that promise to prosecute the men who have been engaged in 
this violation of the rights of the people we represent, as you 
promised to do.” 

And we say: “Well, we are very sorry. It is true we entered 
into that promise, and we intended to have it kept, and there¬ 
fore we will write a note to the governor of the State and 
express the hope that his district attorneys will institute prose¬ 
cutions before the grand juries of the State and see that justice 
is done.” 

When it usually occurs through prejudice existing in that 
very community where you expect to have justice done. Now I 
say that puts us in a pusillanimous position. I say that we have 
no business to enter into any international promise that we can 
not use the right arm of the Federal Government to maintain 
and keep. 

I dwelt upon this subject in my inaugural address, and I hope 
to press it again upon the attention of Congress; but I thought, 


Arbitration. 


7 


in view of the fact that we are all agreed about arbitration and 
peace and the abolishment of war, if we can bring it about, 
that I would suggest one practical means by which you can 
clothe your Executive with a means of avoiding difficulty with 
foreign countries and with a means of avoiding putting your 
Chief Executive and yourselves in a humiliating position with 
reference to your pledged promise. 

And now, ladies and gentlemen, I have done. I did not 
expect to talk quite so long. I have been talking all the week, 
clear from Chicago here, and if what I have said seems to lack 
preparation, you may understand that you can not prepare 
every speech, however dignified and however attractive the 
audience. 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT AT THE BANQUET OF THE AMERICAN 

SOCIETY FOR THE JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES, 

AT THE NEW WILLARD, WASHINGTON, D. C., DECEMBER 17, 1910. 

We hear a great deal nowadays of movements and societies 
and legislative resolutions in favor of international peace, and 
I assume that no one would wish to be put in the position of 
denying that peace contributes greatly to the happiness of man¬ 
kind, or of advocating war as an institution to be fostered in 
and of itself. To say that one is in favor of peace is not much 
more startling than to say that one is in favor of honesty, in 
favor of virtue, in favor of good, and opposed to evil. That 
from which the world can derive the most benefit is a practical 
suggestion leading to more permanent peace. Many have 
thought that this could be brought about by an agreement 
among the powers to disarm, and some sort of a convention by 
which the race to bankruptcy in the maintenance of great 
armies and the construction of great navies might cease and a 
gradual disarmament follow. Future events may justify some 
different conclusion, but movements in the past along this line 
have not been fruitful of practical results. Bankruptcy and the 
burdensome weight of debt involved in continued armament 
may bring about a change in the present national tendencies. 
Meantime, however, I am strongly convinced that the best 
method of ultimately securing disarmament is the establish¬ 
ment of an international court and the development of a code 
of international equity which nations will recognize as affording 
a better method of settling international controversies than 
war. We must have some method of settling issues between 
nations, and if we do not have arbitration, we shall have war. 
Of course the awful results of war with its modern armaments 
and frightful cost of life and treasure, and its inevitable shaking 
of dynasties and governments, have made nations more chary 
of resort to the sword than ever before; and the present, there¬ 
fore, because of this, would seem to be an excellent time for 
pressing the substitution of courts for force. 

8 


Arbitration. 


9 


1 am glad to come here and to give my voice in favor of the 
establishment of a permanent international court. I sincerely 
hope that the negotiations which Secretary Knox has initiated 
in favor of an international prize court—after the establish¬ 
ment of that court—will involve the enlargement of that court 
into a general arbitral court for international matters. It is 
quite likely that the provisions for the constitution of the 
arbitral court will have to be different somewhat from those 
that govern the selection of members of the prize court, but I 
am glad to think that the two movements are in the same direc¬ 
tion and are both likely to be successful. 

What teaches nations and peoples the possibility of perma¬ 
nent peace is the actual settlement of controversies by courts of 
arbitration. The settlement of the Alabama controversy by 
the Geneva arbitration, the settlement of the seals controversy 
by the Paris Tribunal, the settlement of the Newfoundland fish¬ 
eries controversy by The Hague Tribunal are three great sub¬ 
stantial steps toward permanent peace, three facts accomplished 
that have done more for the cause than anything else in history. 

If now we can negotiate and put through a positive agree¬ 
ment with some great nation to abide the adjudication of an 
international arbitral court in every issue which can not be 
settled by negotiation, no matter what it involves, whether 
honor, territory, or money, we shall have made a long step 
forward by demonstrating that it is possible for two nations at 
least to establish as between them the same system of due proc¬ 
ess of law that exists between individuals under a government. 

It seems to be the view of many that it is inconsistent for those 
of us who advocate any kind of preparation for war or any 
maintenance of armed force or fortification to raise our voices 
for peaceful means of settling international controversies. But 
I think this view is quite unjust and is not practical. We only 
recognize existing conditions . and know that we have not 
reached a point where war is impossible or out of the question, 
and do not believe that the point has been reached in which all 
nations are so constituted that they may not at times violate 
their national obligations. 

Take, thus, the question of the Panama Canal. We have a 
property which when completed will be worth $400,000,000— 


10 


Arbitration. 


at least, it will have cost us that. It has been built not alone to 
further the cause of the world’s commerce, but also to bring our 
eastern and western seaboards closer together and to secure us 
the military benefit enabling our naval fleet to pass quickly 
from one ocean to the other. Now, the works of the canal are 
of such a character that a war vessel might easily put the canal 
out of commission. We are authorized to police the canal and 
protect it, and we have the treaty right to erect fortifications 
there. Fortifications are the best and most secure method of 
protecting that canal against the attack of some irresponsible 
nation or armed force. It is said that we could neutralize the 
canal and by inducing all nations to agree not to attack the 
canal secure its immunity from injury. But the trouble is that 
nations are quite as likely as men to violate their obligations 
under great stress like that of war. It seems to me that we 
ought to put ourselves in a position with reference to this very 
valuable and delicate piece of property so that, should any 
nation forget its obligation, we will be in a position to prevent 
unlawful injury to this instrument of commerce so valuable 
to the world and so indispensable to us. The fact that we for¬ 
tify the canal will not prevent us from discharging all inter¬ 
national obligations that we may have in respect to it, but it will 
enable us to defend ourselves in its possession against the act 
of every irresponsible force or nation. It will not prevent our 
maintaining its neutrality if that is wise and right. 

I would like to invite attention to an interesting incident 
within the last month. Suppose a Dreadnought under the com¬ 
mand of the men who have recently been in command of 
Dreadnoughts were to seek entrance to that canal by force. 
What we need is something to defend what is ours, and because 
we have the means of defending it is no reason why we should 
not neutralize the canal completely if that be wise. 

Again, our strong feeling in favor of peace, it seem to me, 
ought not to prevent our taking the proper steps under existing 
conditions to maintain our national defenses. We have on the 
continent of the United States excellent coast defenses for every 
important harbor that an enemy could enter. We probably 
ought to see to it that we have ammunition and guns enough 


Arbitration. 


11 


for ready use in case of emergency. We have a small but very 
efficient Army of 80,000 men. We have a militia of about 
125,000 men. The Army is so constituted that we could enlarge 
it from a skeleton organization into a much larger body. We 
ought to have more trained officers, so as to furnish the teachers 
to a larger body of men that war might require us to enlist. 

There has been a good deal of talk in the papers, and some 
reference in Congress, to the supposed helpless condition of 
this country in the event of a foreign invasion. I venture to 
think that much more has been made of this than the facts, 
calmly considered, would justify. We have a very good Navy, 
and with the opening of the Panama Canal it will be a much 
more effective one. It would be useful to prevent the coming 
of an invading army across the seas. 

The people of this country will never consent to the main¬ 
tenance of a standing army which military experts would pro¬ 
nounce sufficiently large to cope in battle with the standing 
armies of Europe, should they get by our Navy, avoid our harbor 
defenses, and descend upon our coast. If this leaves us in a 
position of helplessness, then so be it. For those who under¬ 
stand the popular will in this country know that it can not be 
otherwise. We shall do everything in the way of wise military 
preparation if we maintain our present Regular Army, if we 
continue to improve the national militia, if we pass the pending 
volunteer bill, to go into operation when war is declared and 
not to involve the Nation in a dollar’s worth of expense until the 
emergency arises; if we pass a law, now pending in Congress, 
which will give us a force of additional officers trained in the 
military art, and able in times of peace to render efficient serv¬ 
ice in drilling the militia of the States, and in tilling useful 
quasi-civil positions that are of the utmost advantage to the 
Government, and if we in a reasonable time accumulate guns 
and ammunition enough to equip and arm the force we could 
enlist under our colors in an emergency. 

This discussion of needed military preparations does not 
sound very well at a peace meeting, but the trouble about a 
peace meeting is that it seems to me to he just one-half of the 
picture, and I want to introduce the whole picture in order 


12 


Arbitration. 


that what is resolved here and what is said here may be under¬ 
stood to be said with a view to existing conditions and to the 
practical truth. 

I have said this much in order to allay the so-called war scare 
which has furnished pabulum for the newspapers during the 
last few days. There is not the slightest reason for such a 
sensation. We are at peace with all the nations of the world, 
and are quite likely to remain so as far as we can see into the 
future. Just a little more forethought, a little more attention 
to the matter on the part of Congress, and we shall have all of 
the Army and all of the munitions and material of war that we 
ought to have in a Republic situated, as we are, 3,000 miles on 
the one hand and 5,000 miles on the other from the source of 
possible invasion. Our Army is much more expensive per man 
than that of any other nation, and it is not an unmixed evil 
that it is so, because it necessarily restricts us to the main¬ 
tenance of a force which is indispensable in the ordinary po¬ 
licing of this country and our dependencies and furnishes an 
additional reason for our using every endeavor to maintain 
peace. 

I congratulate this association on the recent foundation of 
Mr. Carnegie, by which, under the wise guidance of Mr. Elihu 
Root, Mr. Knox, and their associates, an income of half a million 
of dollars annually is to be expended in the practical promotion 
of movements to secure permanent peace. The wide discretion 
given to the trustees, and their known ability, foresight, and 
common sense insure the usefulness of the gift. 

War has not disappeared and history will not be free from 
it for years to come, but the worst pessimist can not be blind to 
the fact that in the last 25 years long steps have been taken in 
the direction of the peaceful settlement of international contro¬ 
versies, and the establishment of a general arbitral court for all 
nations is no longer the figment of the brain of a dreamy 
enthusiast. 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT AT THE DINNER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA 
SOCIETY, HOTEL ASTOR, NEW YORK CITY, JANUARY 21, 1911. 

Gentlemen of the Pennsylvania Society : I am glad to be 
here and am glad to know that so much of the energy, the enter¬ 
prise, and the intelligence of New York has been contributed by 
thes ons of William Penn. William Penn was in favor of peace. 
So, too, are the men of Pennsylvania. But I assume that they 
are practical men who do not lose sight of facts and existing 
conditions in an ecstacy of hope and Utopian enthusiasm. 

1 am going to invite your attention to the question now pend¬ 
ing in Congress as to whether the Panama Canal ought to he 
fortified. 1 cag not think that any careful person will read the 
record of historical facts, treaties, and acts of Congress, and 
diplomatic negotiations without conceding the full right of ihe 
United States to fortify the canal. But memories are short, 
records are not always at hand, and without in the slightest 
degree conceding that the existence of the full right of the 
United States to fortify her own property on the Isthmus is in 
the slightest doubt, I venture, before considering the question 
of the policy of fortifying the canal, to refer to the history 
which makes the right incontcstible. 

In 1850 we made the Clayton-Bulwer treaty with England, 
which contemplated a canal built by somebody other than the 
contracting parties and probably by private enterprise across 
Central America or the Isthmus of Panama. By that treaty we 
agreed with England that we would neither of us own any 
part of the land in which the canal was to be built, and we 
would neither of us fortify it, and we would unite together 
in guaranteeing its neutrality and would invite the rest of the 
nations to become parties to the agreement. The canal was 
not built under that treaty. The French attempted it and 
failed. We had a Spanish war. The cruise of the Oregon of 
12,000 miles along the seacoast of two continents, from San 
Francisco to Cuba, at a time when the seat of war was in the 

13 


14 


Arbitration. 


West Indies fastened the attention of the American people upon 
the absolute necessity for a canal as a military instrument 
for doubling the efficiency of our Navy and for preventing a 
division of our forces of defense which might in the future 
subject us to humiliating defeat. This lesson brought about the 
effort to modify the Clayton-Bulwer treaty for the very purpose 
of securing the right on the part of the United States to own the 
land through which the canal was to be built, to construct the 
canal itself, and to regain the power to fortify the canal which 
it had parted with in the treaty of 1850 under other conditions. 
The correspondence between Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Hay, as 
well as Mr. Hay’s statement to the Senate in transmitting the 
treaty which was finally ratified, show beyond peradventure 
that it was recognized by both parties to that treaty, first, that 
the canal to be built should be one to be built by the United 
States, to be owned by the United States, to be managed by 
the United States, and that the neutrality of the canal which 
was to be maintained, was to be maintained by the United 
States; second, that nothing in the treat} 7 would prevent the 
United States from fortifying the canal, and that in case of 
war between the United States and England or any other coun¬ 
try nothing in the treaty would prevent the United States from 
closing the canal to the shipping of an enemy. In the absence 
of treaty restriction, of course, these rights inhere in the sov¬ 
ereignty of the United States and the control of its own. It 
is perfectly palpable that this was insisted upon by the Senate, 
for the reason that one of the main motives in the construction 
of the canal was the extension of the coast line of the United 
States through the canal and the use of the canal in time of 
war as an instrument of defense. The guaranty of neutral¬ 
ity in the treaty is subject, and necessarily subject, to this 
construction. 

The purpose and assertion of the right of the people of the 
United States to fortify the canal are shown again in the pas¬ 
sage of the Spooner Act in 1902 directing the President to build 
the canal and to make proper defenses. The treaty with 
Panama reaffirms the treaty with England, made in 1900, and 
expressly gives to the United States the power of fortification. 
How, then, can anyone dispute the right of the United States to 


Arbitration. 


15 


fortify the canal, when the English treaty was amended for the 
very purpose of regaining it, when it is expressly given in the 
treaty made with Panama that granted us the land on which 
to build the canal, and when not a single foreign nation— 
including in this England, who has made a treaty with us on 
the subject—has ever seen fit to suggest a lack of power to do 
that which an act of Congress nine years old directed the 
President to do, and on the faith of which $500,000,000 are being 
expended? 

The right of the United States to fortify the canal and to close 
it against the use of an enemy in time of war being established, 
what should he its policy? We built the canal to help us defend 
the country; not to help an enemy to attack it. Even if a certain 
and practical neutralization of the canal by agreement of all 
nations could be secured to us when engaged in war, an enemy 
could then use the canal for transit to attack us in both oceans 
as we propose to use it to defend ourselves. After expending 
$500,000,000 thus to make our national defense easier, are we to 
surrender half the military value of the canal by giving the 
benefit of it to a nation seeking to destroy us? It seems to me 
that the very statement of the proposition carries its refutation. 

But it is said that we ought to defend the canal by our Navy. 
I am not a strategist; I am not a military or a naval expert; but 
it seems to me as plain as that one and one are two that a navy 
is for the purpose of defense through offense, for the purpose 
of protection by attack, and that if we have to retain a part 
of our Navy in order to defend the canal on both sides, then the 
canal becomes a burden and not an instrument of defense at 
all. The canal ought to defend itself, and we ought to have 
fortifications there which will be powerful enough to keep off 
the navies of any nation that might possibly attack us. I am 
glad to see that Capt. Mahan, one of the greatest naval strate¬ 
gists, in a communication to this morning’s Tribune, confirms 
this view. 

Again, under our treaty with England and other countries, it 
is we who guarantee the neutrality of the canal. It is not the 
other countries that guarantee it to us, and we are bound, if 
we conform to the treaty with England, to put ourselves in such 
a condition that we can perform that guaranty. Suppose Eng- 


16 


Arbitration. 


land is at war with some other country that is not bound to us 
by treaty rights at all; is not it essential that we should have 
fortifications there to protect the canal, not only for our own 
use and for the world’s commerce, but for the use of England 
and her warships as a means of passage? In other words, we 
have to preserve that canal as a means of transit to belligerents 
in time of war as long as we are ourselves not engaged in the 
controversy. 

But it is said that we could induce ail tiie powers to come in 
and consent to the neutrality of the canal as a treaty obligation. 
I should be glad to do this if possible; but even if we do this, 
can we feel entirely safe by reason of that agreement from a 
possible injury to the canal by some irresponsible belligerent, 
at least under conditions as they now are? 

Then it is said that the fortifications are going to cost 
$50,000,000. This is an error. The estimated cost of the forti¬ 
fications for the canal is $12,000,000. That, I submit, consti¬ 
tutes hardly more than 2 per cent of the cost of the canal—a 
first premium for insuring its safety that is not excessive. 

It is also said that it will cost $5,000,000 a year to maintain 
them. This is also an error. I have consulted the War 
Department, and they advise me that the addition to the annual 
- Government cost of maintenance of fortifications and military 
establishment in time of peace due to the fortifications of the 
canal would not exceed half a million dollars—an annual 
insurance rate after first cost of a tenth of 1 per cent. 

The case of the Suez Canal furnishes no analogy whatever. 
In the first place, the Suez Canal is nothing but a ditch in a 
desert, incapable of destruction, and even when obstructed it 
can be cleared within a very short time. The Panama Canal, 
by the destruction of the gate locks, could he put out of commis¬ 
sion for two years, and the whole commerce of the world made 
to suffer therefrom. 

Again, the land through which the Suez Canal runs is not in 
the jurisdiction of England or of any one of the five great 
powers. Many nations partake in the ownership of the canal, 
and it is not within the control of any single nation. The cir¬ 
cumstances under which the Panama Canal has been building, 
the ownership of the strip, and one of the main purposes for 


Arbitration. 


17 


which it was constructed are very different and make it exactly 
as if it were a canal cut through the narrow part of Florida. 
It is on American soil and under American control, and it needs 
our fortifications for national defense just as much as the city 
of New York needs fortifications, and there is the additional 
reason that we ought to have them in order to perform our 
international obligations. 

I yield to no one in my love of peace, in my hatred of war, 
and in my earnest desire to avoid war. I believe that we have 
made great strides toward peace within the last decade. No 
one that I know of goes further in favor of settling international 
controversies by arbitration than I do, and if I have my way 
and am able to secure the assent of other powers, I shall submit 
to the Senate arbitration treaties broader in their terms than 
any that body has heretofore ratified, and broader than any 
that now exist between the nations. In laying down my office, I 
could leave no greater claim to the gratitude of my countrymen 
than to have secured such treaties. But I can not permit myself 
in the enthusiastic desire to secure universal peace to blind 
myself to the possibilities of war. We have not reached the time 
when we can count on the settlement of all international con¬ 
troversies by the arbitrament of a tribunal. 

I welcome most highly the rapidly increasing ranks of the 
advocates of peace. They help to form a public opinion of the 
world that is, with appreciable progress, forcing nations to a 
settlement of quarrels by negotiation or peace tribunal. When 
adjudication by arbitral court shall be accepted, the motive for 
armament will disappear. But we can not hope to bring about 
such a condition for decades. Meantime, we must face the facts 
and see conditions as they are. Some earnest advocates of 
peace weaken their advocacy by failing to do this. War is still a 
possibility; and a President, a Senator, a Congressman who 
ignores it, as something against which proper precautions 
should be taken, subjects himself in time of peace to the just 
criticism of all reasonable men, and when war comes and finds 
the nation unprepared, to the unanimous condemnation of his 
indignant fellow-countrymen. 

7994—11-2 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT BEFORE THE THIRD NATIONAL PEACE CON 
GRESS AT THE LYRIC THEATER, BALTIMORE, MD., MAY 3, 1911. 

Mr. Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen: It expresses my 
feelings when I say that I am frightened by the introduction 
of the chairman. I have been told before that I exercise in 
the presidential ottice greater power than any man on earth, 
and I have been able to take that idea in and know how much 
of it is real fact and how much of it is eloquence turning a 
good period. It is possible that the President does exercise 
greater power than that of any other ruler in the world, but 1 
am able to give you a little information from the standpoint of 
one with some opportunity to observe, and I am bound to say 
that the burden and responsibility of the position are brought 
home to him much more clearly than the power. 

Your chairman has been good enough to refer to what I have 
said with reference to general arbitration, and to my expressed 
opinion that an arbitration treaty of the widest scope between 
two great nations would be a very important step in securing 
the peace of the world. I don’t claim any patent for a new dis¬ 
covery in that suggestion, because I have no doubt that it has 
often been made before and has long been shared by all who 
understand the situation at all. If such an arbitration treaty 
can be concluded I have no doubt that an important step will 
have been taken, but it will not bring an end of war. It is a 
step only, and we must not defeat our purposes by enlarging 
the expectation of the world as to what is to happen and by 
then disappointing it. We must realize that we are dealing 
with a world that is fallible and full of weakness, with some¬ 
what of wickedness in it, and that reforms that are worth hav¬ 
ing are brought about little by little, and not by one blow. I 
don’t mean to say by this that I am not greatly interested and 
enthusiastic in seeking to secure the arbitration treaty or 
treaties that are suggested, but I do think we are likely to 
make more progress if we express our hopes with moderation 
18 


Arbitration. 


19 


and realize the difficulties that are to be overcome than if we 
proclaim that we have opened the gate to eternal peace with 
one key and within one year. 

I am not going to dwell upon the question of the arbitration 
treaty which is in the process of negotiation. The truth is, I 
would much rather stand upon the platform and refer to such 
a step when taken, to such a treaty when made and acquiesced 
in, than to discuss it during its negotiation; and therefore I 
would wish to direct the few remarks I address to you this 
afternoon to other but kindred subjects. 

I have recently received a great many invitations from vari¬ 
ous associations whose titles indicated that their purpose was 
the promotion of peace, and it has seemed to me that in their 
closer cooperation we might find some opportunity for an 
improvement in the movement and give greater force to the 
cause by organized expression. You have a congress here, and 
in this congress I assume that a good many associations take 
part. Have you any basis of organization and union which 
unites your efforts in anything but this congress? Don’t you 
think you had better bind your peace associations together in 
a federation and make your efforts united toward the one 
object you have in view? Aren’t you likely to squander a little 
of your force if you maintain isolated associations without 
union ? 

My second suggestion is that one of the evidences of an im¬ 
provement in the world for peace is the fact that all state de¬ 
partments, all foreign chancelleries, are themselves now organ¬ 
ized into agencies for the promotion of peace by negotiation. 
The State Department at Washington has no more important 
or absorbing duty than to lend its good offices to the 20 Repub¬ 
lics of this hemisphere to prevent their various differences 
from leading into war. And not to go back of this administra¬ 
tion, there have been four instances in which the action of our 
State Department, taken in connection with some of the influ¬ 
ential countries of South America, has absolutely prevented 
war, which 20 or 30 years ago would certainly have ensued. 

The recurrence of war is not now so frequent between stable 
and powerful governments maintaining law and order within 
their respective borders as it is in those governments which do 


20 


Arbitration. 


not exercise complete control over their people, and in which 
revolutions and insurrections break out, not only to the injury 
and danger of the peoples and their property and of the gov¬ 
ernment itself, but to the disturbance of all the world in their 
neighborhood. It is with reference to disturbances of this kind 
that the United States and the other great Republics of this 
hemisphere must exercise their kindly and peaceful influence 
as much as possible. 

One of the difficulties that the United States finds is the nat¬ 
ural suspicion that the countries engaged have of the motive 
which the United States has in tendering its good offices. As¬ 
severation of good faith helps but little where the suspicion is 
real, and yet I like to avail myself of an opportunity in such a 
presence as this, to assert that there is not in the whole length 
and breadth of the United States, among its people, any desire 
for territorial aggrandizement, and that its people as a whole 
will not permit its Government, if it would, to take any steps 
in respect to foreign peoples, looking to a forcible extension of 
our political power. 

We have had wars, and we know what they are. We know 
what responsibilities they entail, the burdens and losses and 
horrors, and we would have none of them. We have a magnifi¬ 
cent domain of our own in which we are attempting to work 
out and show to the world success in popular government, and 
we need no more territory in which to show that. But we have 
attained great prosperity and great power. We have become 
a powerful member of the community of nations in which we 
live, and there is therefore thrust upon us necessarily a care 
and responsibility for the peace of the world in our neighbor¬ 
hood and a burden of helping those nations that can not help 
themselves, if we may do that peacefully and effectively. 

Now, we have undertaken such a duty in respect to Santo 
Domingo. She was torn with contending factions. Foreign 
governments held her bonds and desired to collect what was 
due. We entered into an arrangement by which we put in our 
revenue officers to collect the revenues. We took charge of 
the customhouse, and that mere agency gave us an instrumen¬ 
tality by which we have enabled that nation to go on, until she 
is rapidly paying off her debts and becoming powerful and 


Arbitration. 


21 


prosperous. While our revenue collectors have been there she 
has had no faction or revolution. I may add that our position 
with respect to Santo Domingo enabled us to intervene when 
she and Haiti thought it was necessary to fight about something 
and to induce those two nations to submit their differences to 
The Hague. 

And now, my friends, I shall not continue these desultory 
remarks. I only want to say that I am glad to come here to this 
world’s congress of peace, and, in so far as I have any repre¬ 
sentative character, by my presence here, to lend to it the sup¬ 
port and approval of the people of the United States. 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT AT ARLINGTON CEMETERY, ON MEMORIAL 
DAY, MAY 30, 1911. 

As we gather in this assembly, with all the thoughts that its 
surroundings suggest, the question presents itself, “ What is the 
purpose of these commemorative services? ” It is said that we 
are here to pay tribute to our patriotic dead—-to those who 
yielded up their lives that our country might be saved. But 
does our coming here and do our ceremonies and hymns and 
eloquent tributes make the dead happier? If from somewhere 
their souls contemplate this scene, are they gratified merely 
because we praise them? Is it not rather that they can see that 
the influence of their deeds lives after them in the uplifting and 
revitalizing of the highest ideals of the living? These cere¬ 
monies are not for the benefit of the dead. They are to keep 
green the memory of their deeds and thereby to stir in the 
living members of society—in the citizens of to-day—the spirit 
of high appreciation and enthusiastic emulation of those su¬ 
preme sacrifices for their fellow-countrymen that the sight of 
these graves of the dead makes alive to us. 

Love of country, love of family, love of God—it is difficult to 
classify these affections of the human heart and soul, for they 
so melt into each other that the one who has most of one has 
most of all. 

As we stand, however, in the presence of the dead on this 
beautiful May morning and seek to realize and enjoy the 
essence of patriotism which, like incense, steals into the atmos¬ 
phere of this sacred spot, we find ourselves slipping into a 
conception of war as necessary to human development, the 
making of human character, and the exhibition of the highest 
human ideals. We lost sight of the cruelty, the courage, the 
arousing of the most brutal human passion, the indifference 
to human suffering, the meanest human ambitions, the ghoulish 
corruption, and all the other wickedness that follows in the 
trail of war, and we think only of the calm spirit of supreme 
22 


Arbitration. 


23 


self-sacrifice that ennobled the brave soldier who lost his life 
in the shock of battle and who rests peacefully with his com¬ 
rades in these beautiful shades. 

Of course, it is necessary that we should have sin and tempta¬ 
tion if we would have exhibitions of virtue which resist them; 
but is that a reason for favoring either temptation or sin? Of 
course, in order that we should know the existence and power 
of the highest traits of the human soul, we must have human 
tragedies, but certainly no one would promote a tragedy for 
the purpose of furnishing to the world proof of the existence 
of such traits. Strive as we may to prevent or destroy them, 
we shall have sin and wickedness and temptation and tragedy 
enough as a school of experience, development, and demonstra¬ 
tion of human character. The same answer must be made to 
those who permit themselves to advocate war as a necessary 
experience in the development of man. 

There was a time when an insult by one man to another in the 
same social class could only be wiped out by the blood of the 
other in a mortal duel, and in those days it took more moral 
courage to avoid a duel than to fight one. We have made 
great progress, almost within our own memory, in such ideals. 
If that be true of men why may it not be true in the near 
future of nations? Why will it not show more patriotism and 
more love of country to refuse to go to war for an insult and to 
submit it to the arbitrament of a peaceful tribunal, than to 
subject a whole people to the misery and cruelty and suffering 
and burden of heavy cost of a national war, however glossed 
over by the excitement and ambitions and the glory of a suc¬ 
cessful conquest? 

The lesson in national restraint, the looking at things as they 
are, the rejecting of the dictates of false pride, and the follow¬ 
ing of the teachings of the Master of men are not at all incon¬ 
sistent with, and do not detract from, the continuance of the 
highest love of country and of one’s countrymen. 

Far be it from me to minimize in any way by these sugges¬ 
tions the debt we owe to the men buried here who carried on 
the successful struggle that resulted in the abolition of the 
cancer of slavery and which seemed ineradicable save by such 


24 


Arbitration. 


an awful slaughter of the brightest and bravest and best of the 
Nation’s youth and manhood. 

I shall not stop to discuss whether it might have been possible 
to accomplish the same great reform by milder methods. 
Whether that be true or not, the supreme sacrifice of these men, 
who lie about us, in the course of advancing humanity can never 
be lessened or obscured by such a suggestion. But the thought 
at which I would but hint this morning is that even in the hal¬ 
lowed presence of these dead, whose ideals of patriotism and 
love of their countrymen it needed a war to make everlastingly 
evident, we should abate no effort and should strain every nerve 
and avail ourselves of every honorable possible device to avoid 
war in the future. 

I am not blind to the aid in creating sturdy manhood that the 
military discipline we see in the standing armies of Europe and 
in the Regular Army of this country furnishes, nor do I deny 
the incidental benefits that may grow out of the exigencies and 
sequelae of war. But when the books are balanced the awful 
horrors of either internecine or international strife far out¬ 
weigh the benefits that may be traced to it. 

Let us leave this beautiful city of the national dead, therefore, 
with the deepest gratitude to the men whose valorous deeds 
we celebrate and whose memories we cherish with the ten- 
derest appreciation of the value of the examples they set, but 
with a determination in every way possible, consistent with 
honesty and manly and national self-restraint, to avoid the 
necessity for the display of that supreme self-sacrifice that we 
commemorate to-day in them. 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT AT THE MARION (IND.) BRANCH OF THE 

NATIONAL HOME FOR DISABLED VOLUNTEER SOLDIERS, JULY 2, 1911. 

Members of the National Volunteer Soldiers’ Home of 
Marion: Such an audience as this, on the eve of the natal day 
of the Nation, stirs the depths of one’s patriotic feeling. Harbors 
of refuge and havens of rest for those who in the stormy pas¬ 
sages of their lives bared their breasts, in behalf of their coun¬ 
try, to hostile bullets, serve two high purposes: In the first place, 
they contribute to the payment of their country’s everlasting 
debt to its defenders; and, in the second place, they make 
known to all citizens the care which they may expect from a 
grateful Nation should they in a similar crisis offer their lives 
to save the Government. Better than monuments of brass to 
the dead are the comforts to the living in their old age, as an 
evidence of the country’s love and veneration for patriotic self- 
sacrifice. Much more stimulating to the young is the contempla¬ 
tion of the Nation’s heroes living in retirement, but in comfort, 
at its expense, and bringing back in their grizzled faces, in their 
armless sleeves, in their limbless bodies, the dangers they ran 
and the deeds they did. Of course such a presence can not but 
by reminiscence suggest the subject of war, for it was in the 
greatest war of modern times that the members of this home 
earned their right to be here. But war suggests its counterpart. 
It is those who have seen the horrors of war, who have felt its 
hardships, and have realized its cruelties, and seen the awful 
passions it could arouse, who have witnessed the suffering and 
brutality, as well as the courage and self-sacrifice, that knows 
its evils, and that feel most deeply the necessity for avoiding it 
when possible. 

No man loved peace more than Grant and Sherman. Neither 
general hesitated, in time of war, to accomplish the national 
purpose, to sacrifice the lives that were necessary to achieve 
victory. No man had to bear any heavier charges of indiffer¬ 
ence to loss of life and suffering than they. Their greatness, 

25 


26 


Arbitration. 


however, consisted in recognizing the necessity for action and 
in seeing clearly that if victories were to be won lives must be 
given up, and that any attempts to temporize with the occasion 
and mitigate the awful horrors would only lengthen the war 
and postpone the coming of peace, with all the suffering that 
such postponement necessarily entailed. No men were really 
more tender-hearted than they; and after the war none were 
more emphatic in their advocacy of peace and in their detesta¬ 
tion of war. It is certain that Grant in his travels in Europe 
took less interest in the memorials of Napoleon, the greatest 
soldier of the world, than in a study of social conditions and a 
comparison of the peoples of the countries that he visited with 
those of his own. He had no patience with a military genius 
who sacrificed countries and peoples to his ambition, and whose 
whole history is nothing but a trail of bloody conquest following 
the lust of power and ultimate defeat, in all of which the people 
of France and of Europe were made to pay the cost and render 
the sacrifices. 

I am far from saying that war has not in times past accom¬ 
plished much in the progress of the world. Whether the same 
progress might have been achieved in a more peaceful way it 
is unnecessary to discuss. Probably not. It was by war that 
this country gained its independence of Great Britain. One 
hundred and thirty-five years ago the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence was signed, which changed a protest under arms 
against unjust government to a successful revolution. If Eng¬ 
land had been better advised, probably war would not have 
ensued, and we might now be, as in the case of Canada, cherish¬ 
ing attachment to the mother country without exercising com¬ 
plete independence. Certain it is that the lesson which we 
taught England she took to her heart, and in her colonial policy 
she continued to lighten the bonds which she had laid upon 
her colonies, until now they have no weight, and are merely 
nerves of affection from a mother to children, evincing an 
authority that, however great in form, is in fact, in the wisdom 
of the mother country, one of only nominal restriction. When, 
therefore, our forefathers signed that great instrument of inde¬ 
pendence, they were acting not only on behalf of the Thirteen 
Colonies of America, but they were building better than they 


Arbitration. 


27 


knew in that the result of their protest was to be a change of the 
entire colonial policy of Great Britain in the making of her 
English-speaking colonies that girdled the earth, self-governing 
and independent; and this result was achieved, not by war with 
the colonies, but by the persuasiveness of the error that she 
had made in dealing with us. 

The War of 1812 might certainly have been avoided by arbi¬ 
tration. The questions there presented were questions all of 
which have been settled by the judgment of mankind in favor 
of our side of the controversy. 

The War with Mexico—though there is some dispute over 
this—was one the questions of which were capable of solution 
by an impartial tribunal. Whether the Civil War could have 
been avoided is a very difficult question to answer. When 
slavery has become embedded in the social fiber of a country 
it is possible that only an excision of a war knife can remove 
the cancer. 

Nor shall 1 attempt to answer a similar question as to the 
Spanish War. It is one of those instances of internal discussion 
like the Civil War; and yet I believe that the submission of 
the issues to a tribunal might have affected Spain’s treatment 
of Cuba in such a way that we could have avoided a resort to 
arms. The truth is the danger of war between two great well- 
established countries with modern armaments is much less than 
that kind of war that arises from bad government or from the 
ambition of sinister men in a weak government, who overturn 
it. The awful consequences to two heavily armed countries 
under modern conditions of war have been a great deterrent 
of war; but the irresponsibility of men claiming to be patriots 
and desiring to overturn existing governments where law and 
order are not well established has led to a great deal of guer¬ 
rilla warfare and to the suffering of innocent people, who find 
no real principle involved in the two contending parties except 
that of ambition for power. 

Much of this kind of work has occurred in South America 
and in Central America; and in that degree of guardianship 
which the United States must feel over the Republics of this 
hemisphere, in maintaining their integrity against European 
invasion, we ought to welcome every opportunity which gives 


28 


Arbitration. 


us a legitimate instrument by which we can make less probable 
such internecine strife. In the assertion of that sort of guardian¬ 
ship we have to be very careful to avoid the charge, which is 
always made by the suspicious, that we are seeking our own 
aggrandizement in our interference with the affairs of other 
countries of this hemisphere. It is an unfounded charge, for 
we envy no power its territory. We have enough. But we 
have been able to fend off war in five or more instances of 
recent date, because of our attitude as an elder brother of these 
smaller governments. Thus, in Cuba, after the Platt amend¬ 
ment, we were able to intervene and prevent a bloody war of 
revolution, and this after 20,000 rebels against the constituted 
Government were in arms immediately outside the city of 
Habana, ready to take part. We were able, by reason of the 
agreement we made with Santo Domingo, to help her collect 
her revenue and liquidate and satisfy her legitimate debts, by 
putting our agents in charge of the customhouses, to take away 
the chief motive for a rebellion and the chief hope of success 
of a revolution, which is the acquisition of the customhouse in 
order to collect taxes. And, by reason of our intervention be¬ 
tween Haiti and Santo Domingo, we have been able to prevent 
a war between those two countries, growing out of a dispute 
over a boundary line, which is now in course of reference to 
The Hague. So, too, as between Peru and Ecuador, we were 
able, with the assistance of the great South American Repub¬ 
lics—Brazil, Argentine, and Chile—to stop a war that was on the 
eve of breaking out, a war that involved chiefly a question of 
honor, and both countries became willing to submit it to nego¬ 
tiation and arbitration. 

We have always believed that the course we pursued im¬ 
pressing Bolivia and Peru to settle their boundary dispute 
prevented hostilities between those countries. The situation 
was most acute when our advice was sought by both countries. 
We have been able to bring the heads of two contending fac¬ 
tions in a civil war in Honduras onto the deck of an American 
vessel and there negotiate terms which have led to permanent 
peace. Now Honduras and Nicaragua ask us to assist them in 
paying their debts by agreeing in case of a default to accept 
responsibility for the collection of the revenues and to make 


Arbitration. 


29 


settlements in accordance with the contracts of indebtedness. 
These two treaties are pending in the Senate. I sincerely hope 
that they may be confirmed, because I do not know any other 
power that is so useful in the prevention of war as that which 
enables the United States Government to collect revenue of 
bankrupt and unstable governments and to apply them as law 
and the contracts made require, and thus to put the govern¬ 
ments on their feet firmly. It has worked out with the Republic 
of Santo Domingo in a most remarkable way to the benefit of 
that country in the cause of peace, and we can be certain that 
it will work in the same way in the case of Honduras and Nica- 
rauga if only the Senate will agree with the Executive and 
confirm the treaties made. 

I have merely stated to you what has been accomplished in 
the present administration in the securing of peace among our 
South American and Central American friends. Treaties of 
arbitration in the matter of claims have been confirmed between 
them, and long steps were made by our predecessors in office in 
this direction. Indeed, the pacification of Cuba belongs to the 
last administration, and not to this. As we look back, there¬ 
fore, it will not do to say that great strides have not been made 
in the direction of universal peace. Of course, the condition of 
Mexico may well make us hesitate to prophesy too strongly as 
to the future, but all the lovers of mankind hope that the present 
condition of that country may lead to the establishment of a 
firm government, and one in which there may not be the same 
occasion for popular unrest as that which gave rise to the recent 
collision. 

For the further securing of peace, and as an example to all 
the world of the possibilities of the use of arbitration, we have 
invited England and France and Germany to make a treaty for 
the arbitration of all differences of an international character 
that in their nature can be adjudicated, and we have left out in 
this treaty those exceptions which have heretofore always been 
excluded from arbitrable controversies, to wit, questions of a 
nation’s honor and of its vital interest. Of course, I can not 
say with positiveness that these treaties will all be made and 
confirmed. I can only say that the prospect of an agreement 
with the Executive of one of the countries is reasonably sure, 


30 


Arbitration. 


and we have every hope as to the other two, and that these 
three treaties will be followed by many of the same tenor with 
other countries if the original three are agreed upon and 
confirmed. 

Objection has been made that an agreement to arbitrate a 
question of national honor ought not to be entered into for the 
reason that when once honor is affected one will never consent 
to have the question arbitrated, and therefore that to agree to 
do so in advance is to agree to do something that one will not 
be willing to do, and that one does not intend to do, and there¬ 
fore it savors of hypocrisy and ought not to be adopted as a 
national policy. I can not concede the premises of this argu¬ 
ment. I look upon a treaty of this sort as a self-denying ordi¬ 
nance, as a self-restricting obligation. It seems to be of the 
same character as the Constitution which the people as a whole 
set up and in which they impose checks upon their own power 
and limitations upon the method by which they exercise the 
ultimate sovereignty which is in them. It is not that they do 
not recognize that when the temptation comes to exercise arbi¬ 
trary power they will not feel like exercising it, but it is that 
they deliberately impose these limitations upon their own action 
with the intention that they shall be effective, however averse 
they may be to yield to them when the occasion arises for their 
enforcement. And so in agreeing to arbitrate questions of 
national honor I see no reason why we may not agree to do so 
and that we may not have moral courage enough, in spite of our 
impulse to the contrary, to submit such questions to an impar¬ 
tial tribunal and await its judgment. 

As I have had occasion to say before, there was a time when 
questions of honor could only be settled between gentlemen on 
the dueling field, and many a valuable life has ben sacrificed 
to a standard of ethics which the world has now generally dis¬ 
carded. There is not the slightest reason why the same course 
may not be pursued in respect to questions of national honor. 
There is very little probability as between Great Britain and the 
United States any occasion will ever arise in which war would 
be possible. The same thing is true of France and Germany. 
Why, therefore, it is asked, is it necessary to make a treaty of 
arbitration to avoid wars that are only remotely possible? In- 


Arbitration. 


31 


ternational law is made up of international customs, traditions, 
and the formulation of international standards of ethics in 
treaties between civilized governments. A willingness of great 
countries like those of England, France, Germany, and the 
United States to submit all their differences, even of honor, to 
an impartial tribunal, will be a step forward in the cause of 
peace for the world that can hardly be overestimated. 

I am not a wild enthusiast or a blind optimist. I do not look 
forward to a complete restoration of peace which can not be 
disturbed in the world even if these treaties are adopted. 
Morality of nations improve only step by step, and so the mak¬ 
ing and confirming of these treaties must be regarded only as a 
step, but a very long step, toward the securing of peace in the 
world. To you men who have seen war, to you who know 
its horrors, I appeal for the support of every practical instru¬ 
ment like this in making war less possible and peace more 
permanent. 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT BEFORE THE CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOR CON¬ 
VENTION, AT YOUNG’S PIER, ATLANTIC CITY, N. J., JULY 7, 1911. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Christian Endeavor, Ladies, 
and Gentlemen : As I stand upon this platform, I am conscious 
of being in the presence of a religious force for progress and 
good in the world that had its genesis nearly 30 years ago, 
and now is making its influence felt completely around the 
world and through the expression and activity of 4,000,000 
living souls. 

This convention commemorates the organization of a move¬ 
ment based upon the principle that the time to influence men 
and women in their lives is in that formative period between 
youth and manhood, and that the making of the character of 
men and women is best achieved by training and practice 
rather than by instruction and preaching. It does not dis¬ 
countenance either instruction to the infants in the Sunday 
school or preaching to the adults in the church, but it furnishes 
a link between the two that in its actual influence has resulted 
in marvelous development, and shows itself in the conscious 
and enthusiastic demonstration of biennial meetings like this, 
in the history of its progress that are recounted at these con¬ 
ventions by representatives from all quarters of the globe. By 
insistence upon open confession of religious faith and the bring¬ 
ing forth of works needful for the expression of that faith and 
in the fellowship which follows a common confession and 
works, the Christian Endeavor has made its mark in the 
religious history of the world. 

But I did not come here to discuss before an audience that 
knows them very much better than I the principles upon which 
your society is founded and the methods by which these prin¬ 
ciples have been embodied in the present glorious and useful 
development. I may take one sentence to express my profound 
and sincere admiration for Dr. Clark and his estimable wife, 
the founders of this society, who have lived long enough to see 
32 


Arbitration. 


33 


it grow from one small organization in Williston, Me., to a 
world power for good, and, as the Chief Magistrate of this 
country, to recognize the debt it owes for their work and espe¬ 
cially in the development of individual Christian character 
among the members of the Evangelical Protestant churches of 
this country. Such a movement can not but have the most bene¬ 
ficial effect upon the citizenship of a Nation like this, and 1 
should be lacking in appreciation of these currents of popular 
reform and individual uplifting if I did not seize such an oppor¬ 
tunity to pay a just tribute to those who have deserved so well 
of the Republic; for while this country has no state church and 
encourages the utmost freedom of religious belief and practice, 
it is a fundamental error to suppose that those who are respon¬ 
sible in any degree for the public welfare may not in every 
proper way encourage all instrumentalities for the betterment 
of the individual man, all moral and religious movements for 
his higher spiritual welfare, without regard to the denomina¬ 
tional jurisdiction in which such movements take their source 
or exercise their influence. They necessarily tend to a leaven of 
the whole community and to the righteousness that exalteth a 
nation. 

But, as I say, I did not come here to tell you about your own 
organization. I came to talk on a subject and cause in which I 
have, in common with all the civilized people of the world, an 
intense interest, and that is the avoidance of war by providing 
such instrumentalities for the settlement of international con¬ 
troversies as to make war remote, because unnecessary. 

I observe that in your last convention, the twenty-fourth inter¬ 
national convention, one of your resolutions was as follows: 

Resolved, That as followers of the Prince of Peace we ally ourselves 
with every effort that is being made for the suppression of war. The 
immense and ever-increasing tax which war and preparations for war 
levy on peaceful industries and the frightful horrors of war itself 
demand that every lover of God and humanity should unite for its 
suppression. 

In the last 25 years we have made great progress toward an 
international condition in which war is less likely than here¬ 
tofore. It is true that in that time we have had several great 
wars—the war between China and Japan, the war between 
7994—11-3 


34 


Arbitration. 


Russia and Japan, the war between the United States and Spain, 
the war between England and the Boers, and perhaps some 
others. Nevertheless, as between the great countries of Europe 
which have armed themselves to the teeth since the German- 
French War of 1870 peace has been maintained; and under the 
inspiration of a common desire for peace treaties have been 
made with reference to arbitration at The Hague and for the 
establishment of a court at The Hague for the settlement of 
international disputes, and have pointed to the ideal of the 
utmost use in the promotion of the cause of peace. We have 
ameliorated in many ways the ancient cruelties of war by Red 
Gross agreements, and by the immunity of private property on 
land from destruction. Now we are agreeing upon what is 
called the declaration of London, which, if confirmed, as it 
seems likely to be, will take away from war on the sea those 
principles of lawful piracy that have always characterized in a 
naval war the dealing with the private property of the citizens 
of enemies. 

Just to-day four great powers—England, Russia, Japan, and 
the United States—signed a treaty by which we agree in effect 
to banish the shooting of seals at sea, in order to preserve the 
valuable herds on the land and to allow them to propagate in 
such a way as to maintain the fur-seal industry and secure for 
human use the valuable furs that such seals furnish. It is the 
beginning, I hope, of the adoption of useful game laws for the 
open ocean, which has heretofore been subject to wanton and 
irresponsible use of men of every nation. It is the settlement by 
treaty of a controversy that has troubled these four nations for 
several generations, and it ought to be the cause of great 
congratulation. 

By negotiation and mediation and the formation of arbitra¬ 
tion agreements wars in the last decade have been stopped in 
Central and South America in a most gratifying number of 
instances. All wars have not been stopped in those countries 
lacking stability and power to enforce law and order, but that 
there is a marked improvement throughout Latin America in 
this regard, and especially in Central America, no one who has 
consulted the statistics of revolutions can fail to recognize. 


Arbitration. 


35 


The heroism and exhibition of the noblest qualities of the heart 
and soul and mind of man that war makes possible every 
student of history and of human nature must admit, but that 
this is accomplished with the horrible cost and sacrifice of 
human suffering and lives, and that an associated exhibition 
of the lowest moral qualities in man, of ambition, lust for 
power, of cruelty, ghoulish rapacity, and rapacity and corrup¬ 
tion is equally true, and in very few cases, if any, can the histo¬ 
rian say that the good of war was worth the awful sacrifice. 
And hence it is that we should all welcome, as far as we can, 
the effort to dispense with the necessity of war altogether. Even 
if that effort may not be entirely successful, every movement 
which tends to discourage war and to furnish a means for 
avoiding it ought to receive and does receive the earnest sup¬ 
port of an organization that has the purposes and principles 
that actuate the Society of the Christian Endeavor. 

I am glad to say that to-day we have reached such a point in 
the negotiations for a treaty of universal arbitration with one 
of the great European powers that we can confidently predict 
the signing of a satisfactory treaty. The arbitration treaty 
heretofore with Great Britain and other countries has excepted 
from the causes which may be arbitrated those which involved 
the vital interests of either party or its honor. The treaty which 
we are now closing with Great Britain eliminates these excep¬ 
tions, and provides that all questions of international concern 
of a justiciable character shall be submitted to the arbitration 
of an impartial tribunal, and that whenever differences arise 
before they are submitted to arbitration at all,they shall be 
taken up by a commission composed of two or more representa¬ 
tives from each Government that shall investigate the contro¬ 
versy and recommend a solution, without arbitration if possible, 
and then shall decide whether the issue is capable of arbitra¬ 
tion; and, if so, the arbitration shall take place. In this way 
the treaty in one sense, instead of making arbitration necessary, 
interposes mediation of a year between the happening of the 
differences and the bringing of the matter to arbitration, with 
the growing possibility, as the ruffled feelings of the nation may 
be smoothed out by time, that the difference may be adjusted 


36 


Arbitration. 


by mediation instead of judicial action, but holding judicial 
action as the ultimate resort to prevent war. 

I am exceedingly hopeful that other countries beside Great 
Britain will accept the form of the treaty or one like it, and 
that we may have half a dozen treaties with the European 
countries looking toward arbitration of international differ¬ 
ences. This will not abolish war, but it will provide a most 
effective and forcible instrument for avoiding it in many cases. 
Of course war between Great Britain and the United States, 
between France and the United States, and between Germany 
and the United States is quite remote; but the adoption by these 
great countries of arbitration and mediation as a means of 
meeting all controversies must have the most healthy moral 
effect upon the world at large, and must assist all the friends 
of peace in their effort to make it permanent. To this audience 
and this great society with its world-wide influence, I do not 
hesitate to appeal to give the tremendous weight of its support 
to such a cause. 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT AT THE PEACE JUBILEE CELEBRATION AT 
MANASSAS, VA., JULY 21, 1911. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : It is so ordained that we do not 
enjoy to the full those things which come to us without effort. 
I shall enjoy my visit to Manassas to the full, for I have been to 
some effort to get here. I came with a party of Senators and 
Representatives from Washington. We came very slowly— 
much more slowly than those Senators and Representatives 
came back to Washington 50 years ago. When we look back to 
that period a feeling of sadness must overcome us, for that is a 
period that we dislike to look back upon, a period of discourage¬ 
ment and sorrow, reviving in our minds all the great strain and 
trial of that awful struggle. I don’t know whether it might have 
been avoided; I don’t know whether we might have brought 
about the same results in a peaceful way; but I do know that 
in that struggle each side showed a strength that neither side 
had known that it possessed—developed a strength of character 
to the knowledge of the entire world that the world had not 
known of before. 

I deplore war. I wish it could be abolished entirely. Rut we 
may all rejoice that in that awful test the greatness of the 
American people was developed. There we showed our ability 
to fight out our differences to the very death and to make the 
greatest nation in the world after having had the greatest civil 
war the world had ever witnessed. 

The greatest ambition I have as President of the United States 
is to do everything sensible and everything reasonably possible 
to bring the two sections of the country even closer together, if 
that be possible—to make them feel in the South, as well as in 
the North, that the Supreme Court of the United States is their 
Supreme Court, the Congress their Congress, the President of 
the United States their President. 

I look to you veterans of the Civil War that saw real war to 
support the administration and the Government in every effort 

37 


38 


Arbitration. 


made by it to secure peace the world over. And I am glad to 
announce to-day that as England has agreed, so France has 
signified her willingness to enter upon the same treaty for the 
arbitration of any differences that may exist, both treaties to 
be signed within the next ten days. This, I am hopeful, will be 
followed shortly by a like step on the part of three other coun¬ 
tries. I bring this news first to you veterans of the war, because 
I know that you, above all others, have learned sacredly to 
regard the great blessings of peace. 

A visit to Virginia conjures up sweet reminiscences—remi¬ 
niscences of Virginia beauty, chivalry, and hospitality. I am 
glad to be on the soil of Virginia—some of it has adhered to me. 
I am sorry to be late, but Virginia is a hospitable State and 
her soil and her streams gather about one and hinder one’s 
movements. 

It had been announced that I was coming here to deliver an 
address. I came merely to say how-de-do; to express to you 
my pleasure in this great reunion and my joy at being received 
by hospitable Virginia. 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT TO THE METHODIST CHAUTAUQUA, AT 
MOUNTAIN LAKE PARK, MD., AUGUST 7, 1911. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: I have snatched a day out of my 
official work to come up into this delightful mountain country 
to talk to you about peace. 

I am not a blind optimist nor a wild enthusiast in the advo¬ 
cacy of an immediate change of human nature as it exhibits 
itself in the individual man or in the aggregation of men in 
human governments. I realize that moral changes among all 
the people and in the countries of the world take place step 
by step, and that progress is made only by moderate advances 
from time to time. I know that in the last 30 years the arma¬ 
ments of the great powers, especially in the main means of 
naval attack and defense, have increased enormously, and a 
surface view of this tendency would discourage one in the hope 
that we are coming nearer to an era of universal peace. But 
it will be found on study that while preparations for war have 
been greater than ever before, actual conflicts are much less, 
and that the very preparations, with their heavy expense and 
with the prospect of bankrupting losses in actual battle and 
campaigns, have operated more than ever before as deterrent 
of war and promoting peace. 

Twice in public addresses I expressed the view that arbitra¬ 
tion as a means of settling differences between the nations 
might be greatly extended to include even those things which 
have heretofore been excluded, to wit, questions of honor and i/ 
of vital interest. The eagerness and enthusiasm with which 
those tentative and informal proposals were received by the 
great men of England of both parties and by statesmen of many 
other countries is perhaps the most encouraging circumstance 
in a century for those who longed for the end of war. It was 
not that the statesmen and the nations thus welcoming the 
proposal intended to disarm or to stop their preparations for 
possible war, but it was that they welcomed from the bottom 

39 


40 


Arbitration. 


of their hearts every attempt to substitute for war a peaceful 
means for the settlement of the controversies between nations, 
with the hope that when the instrumentality shall have proved 
itself effective as a substitute for war then the heavy and 
bankrupting burdens of present war preparations may be sub¬ 
stantially reduced. 

I have been surprised to note with what fervor the plain 
people of every nation welcome the proposal of universal arbi¬ 
tration, not because their real interest in the practical adoption 
of the plan is not greater than all other classes in the com¬ 
munity, but because it is a somewhat abstruse cause, in the 
success of which they might not be expected to take an imme¬ 
diate interest. Of course in a war it is the common, plain 
people that have to bear most of the suffering. They have to 
pay most of the taxes; they have to do most of the fighting; 
and they secure the least benefit and the least glory. 

The tentative proposals to which I have referred led naturally 
on to negotiations between Great Britain and this country and 
between France and this country, and they have now resulted 
in the signing of formal treaties of what may be called “ uni¬ 
versal arbitration.” They provide that every question of a 
justiciable nature shall be submitted to a tribunal of arbitra¬ 
tion, and they define what justiciable means. It is any issue 
between the nations that can be properly settled upon the prin¬ 
ciples of law and equity, as those are understood in law and in 
international law. There are, of course, questions of policy 
with respect to which each nation must exercise its own discre¬ 
tion, and in doing so is entirely within its legal and equitable 
right, and however its action may affect the other nation it is 
not the proper subject of controversy. But even with reference 
to such questions, it is proposed to submit those to an impartial 
commission, in which both countries are equally represented, 
and they are to consider the matter for a year and then decide, 
first, whether the matters are capable of arbitration, and, if not, 
they are to recommend a settlement. If the controversies are 
found by the commission to'be capable of arbitration, and not 
to be settled by negotiations, then the countries are bound to 
arbitrate them and accept the decision. The machinery thus 
provided will practically dispose of every question so far as 


Arbitration. 


41 


it is a war-inducing issue. A year’s pondering over matters we 
can be sure will give such pause to the hot feeling of either 
nation as to lead to a sensible and peaceful solution. Indeed, 
with the preliminary commission for consideration of the issues 
and recommendation for their proper settlement, the treaty 
may be called almost a treaty not only to avoid war but even 
to avoid arbitration, for it is only in the last instance, after the 
commission shall have failed in a year’s time to suggest a satis¬ 
factory solution, that even arbitration is to be resorted to. 

In the old treaty of arbitration with Great Britain the sub¬ 
jects of national honor and of vital interest were excepted from 
those which were to be considered by a tribunal of arbitration. 
This treaty is made for the purpose of eliminating those excep¬ 
tions, and they are now subject to arbitration within the limita¬ 
tions of the treaty. 

The treaty-making power in the United States is vested by 
the Constitution in the Executive and the Senate, it being re¬ 
quired that each treaty before it can become effective shall be 
advised and assented to by the Senate, two-thirds of that body 
assenting. Hence binding action with respect to international 
contracts, like those for arbitration, can only be had by the con¬ 
current action of the Executive and the Senate. Therefore, it 
is provided in these new arbitration treaties that while the 
United States and Great Britain or the United States and 
France agree to arbitrate every question within the terms of 
the treaty, the special agreement of submission, or the terms of 
submission, as they are sometimes called, in each instance aris¬ 
ing when the operation of the treaty is invoked, shall be consid¬ 
ered and acted upon by the same authority which entered into 
the main treaty of arbitration. In other words, by this treaty, 
if it is ratified, the Executive and the Senate, representing the 
United States, agree to settle all their differences, as described 
in the treaty, by arbitration or through a commission. 

When a concrete instance of a cause of difference or contro¬ 
versy arises, then the obligations of the main treaty require the 
United States, through its lawfully constituted authority, to wit, 
the Executive and the Senate, to make the requisite agreement 
and submission of terms by which the machinery created in the 
treaty shall be set in motion, the issue defined, and the question 


42 


Arbitration. 


decided. Should the treaty be ratified, the Senate, exactly as 
the Executive, will be in honor bound by its obligations in good 
faith to perform the offices which the main treaty provides shall 
be performed on the side of the United States, and then to abide 
the result, and to acquiesce, or in so far as may be, perform 
and execute the judgment of the tribunal. 

I observe that there is some suggestion that by ratifying this 
treaty the Senate may in some way abdicate its functions of 
treaty making. I confess myself unable to perceive the sub¬ 
stance in such a point. The fact that the Senate has the power 
to make a treaty necessarily involves its power to bind itself as 
part of the Government to the obligations of the treaty. This is 
inherent in the treaty-making power. From time immemorial 
governments have bound themselves to abide the judgment of 
third parties in controversies between them. In what respect 
does the Senate treaty-making power differ from that of the 
Executive, or of any government in all times past, that it may 
not agree, on behalf of the nation, to abide the judgment of an 
impartial tribunal; or by treaty to establish a tribunal to con¬ 
sider a certain class of cases and decide them, whether one or 
many, whether existing or in the future, or to accord to the 
tribunal itself, or some other impartial commission, not only 
the power to decide certain issues, but also to decide whether 
the issue which arises comes within the jurisdiction of the tri¬ 
bunal in accordance with the terms of the treaty. One of the 
commonest kinds of questions that comes before any court is 
that of deciding its own jurisdiction in accordance with the 
law. What is there then to prevent the Senate from uniting 
with the Executive in agreeing to settle future controversies of 
a given description in a treaty by the judgment of an impartial 
tribunal, and to submit to that tribunal not only the question 
how the issue ought to be decided, but also as a condition prece¬ 
dent whether the issue is within the terms of the treaty already 
made? 

Treaties with England and France are of the utmost impor¬ 
tance, not in the actual prevention of war between those coun¬ 
tries, because the danger of such a cataclysm as that is, thank 
God, most remote, but they are most important as steps toward 


Arbitration. 


43 


the settlement of all international controversies between all 
countries by peaceable means and by arbitration. The fact that 
two great nations like Great Britain and the United States, or 
like France and the United States, should be willing to submit 
all controversies to a peaceful and impartial tribunal can not 
but work for righteousness among the nations, and for a willing¬ 
ness on their part to adopt the same means for the settlement of 
international disputes. To have these treaties not ratified, 
therefore, by the Senate of the United States, or to have any hes¬ 
itation and discussion of a serious character in respect to them 
would halt the movement toward general peace which has 
made substantial advance in the last 10 years. To secure the 
ratification of the treaties, therefore, appeal must be made to 
the moral sense of the Nation; and while that is not entirely in 
keeping of the churches, certainly they may exert a powerful 
influence in the promotion of any effective instrumentality to 
secure permanent peace. Therefore, I invoke your aid as a 
branch of the great Methodist Church to bring all the influence 
you can bring to secure the confirmation of the treaties now 
made, and of those which may be made hereafter of a similar 
tenor with other countries. This movement has attracted the 
attention not only of England and France, but of all the coun¬ 
tries of Europe and of the Orient. It is not too much to hope 
that there are a number of others who will be willing now to 
sign the same kind of treaties as those already made, and that 
we may ultimately have a network of such agreements, making 
long strides toward universal peace. 

On Saturday last the Senate not only made public the treaties 
now negotiated by the United States with Great Britain and 
France for universal arbitration, but they also made public 
treaties between the United States and Nicaragua and between 
the United States and Honduras. One of the encouraging and 
marked tendencies in international matters is the increasing 
sense of responsibility that powerful nations are acquiring in 
respect to bad government and human suffering under bad 
government in other countries and nations. In our own coun¬ 
try this is evidenced by the Spanish War, which was under¬ 
taken for the benefit of improving the condition of the people 
of Cuba. It is evidenced by the time and money and effort 


44 


Arbitration. 


which have been spent for the last 10 years in improving the 
Philippines. It is evidenced by the intervention in the last 
administration to prevent a revolution in Cuba. It is evidenced 
by the wonderfully successful intervention by Theodore Roose¬ 
velt as President of the United States in securing peace between 
Russia and Japan. It is evidenced by the treaty made in the 
last administration with Santo Domingo, by which we agreed 
to appoint agents to collect the revenue of Santo Domingo and 
to secure their application to the wiping out of a national debt 
which was growing beyond any hope of liquidation. One 
revolution succeeded another in that unfortunate country, and 
its history was nothing but one of blood and battle, and its 
people suffered intense misery from the stagnation and halting 
of all progress that continual wars compelled. 

In respect of the Central American Republics we occupy a 
peculiar position. By the assertion of the Monroe doctrine we 
decline to allow any European country to acquire further terri¬ 
tory in this hemisphere at the expense of any of the existing 
Republics, and as against such an invasion the Monroe doctrine 
puts us in the attitude of, in effect, guaranteeing their integrity. 
When, therefore, European nations, in the enforcement of the 
debts due to their subjects, threaten measures of force against 
any Central American Republic which may lead to an appro¬ 
priation of its territory we can not be indifferent, and we must 
intervene to prevent the logical outcome of such forceful meas¬ 
ures. Rut how can we act as guardian for those Republics in 
their dealings with European nations and their subjects unless 
we assume some responsibility to enable those countries to 
liquidate their indebtedness and readjust it on an equitable 
basis? It is not necessary in doing so for us to assume any 
financial responsibility. It is not necessary for us in doing so 
to use our Army and Navy for the purpose. All we have to do 
is to agree to do what we did in Santo Domingo, or less, to wit, 
to agree to appoint agents to collect the revenues of these 
Republics when default shall occur and appty the money in 
accordance with the contracts. That is a very slight responsi¬ 
bility for us to meet as compared with the power we assert 
under the Monroe doctrine, to wit, to forcibly exclude all Euro¬ 
pean countries from intervention and appropriation of the soil 


Arbitration. 


45 


of these Republics. There is no issue before the Senate so 
acute in respect to the cause of peace as the confirmation of 
those Central American treaties. If those Republics are loaded 
with debts, equitable and inequitable, by our aid, extended in 
the way I have described, through those treaties, they have an 
opportunity to liquidate all their indebtedness on an equitable 
basis. 

The very existence of the treaty and our obligation to take 
charge of the customhouses in case of a default has proven 
in the instance of Santo Domingo to be a most powerful means 
of preventing sedition, rebellion, local disorders, and war. 
Why should we withhold our aid, extended once to Santo 
Domingo, to these other countries equally deserving and equally 
under our guardianship? Is it not better thus to anticipate 
trouble and ward it off by mere civil arrangements that involve 
but little burden than to wait until war follows, until European 
nations undertake a forcible collection of their debts, and 
when we have come face to face with an European controversy 
and continuous wars in the Central American Republics them¬ 
selves? I submit to you, my friends, that while I admit the 
greater importance of the universal treaties of arbitration in 
the long run, and as affecting the world at large, yet in respect 
of American interests—in respect of peace in this hemisphere— 
they are not equal in importance to the confirmation of these 
Central American treaties. The Senate has properly published 
them to the world for the purpose of enabling the people to 
examine them, to study them, and to express their opinion upon 
them, and I venture to hope that popular consideration of them 
will lead to such emphatic approval that the requisite majority 
in the Senate may give the treaties life and Honduras and Nica¬ 
ragua and other similarly situated countries the relief they so 
desperately need. In the halt of business and of all progress 
that their impossible financial condition now imposes upon 
them, the poor people of these Republics are suffering from 
want and starvation, though living in a country of vast re¬ 
sources, which, under the blessing of peace and the investment 
of capital, could be made to yield comfort and happiness to 
every soul of them. 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT AT THE METHODIST CONFERENCE, OCEAN 
GROVE, N. J., AUGUST 15, 1911. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : I have come here to this great gath¬ 
ering at the invitation of your executive committee, and at the 
special instance of Gov. Murphy and Congressman Andrus. 
I am glad to have the privilege of meeting your distinguished 
governor of New Jersey, Gov. Wilson, and to receive from him 
the welcome of the State. 

Tfrese are busy days in Washington, and it has cost me some¬ 
thing in the matter of time and effort to accept your hospitable 
invitation. I could not, however, forego the opportunity of 
coming to talk to you on a subject in which I know that both 
you and I are very deeply interested. I mean the cause of the 
promotion of peace among the nations. 

Moral progress, of course, begins with the individual, and 
unless you can find it there we are not likely to find it in any 
group of individuals, or in the millions of individuals that make 
a state. Hence we must expect that the code of morals that 
governs the association of individuals is a higher one than that 
which obtains in the relations between nations. Still, while 
progress among individuals means progress at a slower rate 
among nations in this regard, it is inevitable that the method 
of settling differences and controversies between individuals 
should furnish a precedent and a suggestion for a similar 
method of settling controversies between nations. 

There was a time in the English law when litigants might 
demand and have a settlement of a controversy by what was 
called “ wager of battle,” but as civilization progressed, wager 
of battle fell into disuse, and civil courts furnished the means 
by which men were able to live with each other, adjust tlieir 
controversies, and continue members of the same society. As 
between nations, the wager of battle has not been laid aside, 
and we are still making treaties and arrangements by which the 
method of conducting war shall be limited to what is thought to 
46 


Arbitration. 47 

be a civilized manner of conducting it, and unnecessary cruel¬ 
ties are forbidden and. eliminated. 

Now the question which the good people of all countries are 
agitating is whether we can not find something satisfactory 
which can be substituted for war as a means of settling inter¬ 
national controversies. The closer acquaintance of nations 
with each other, the greater community of interest among them, 
the increase in the family feeling between them all press toward 
an avoidance of war and a settlement of controversies other¬ 
wise. it is this real increase in the actual brotherhood of man 
and of the interest of the citizen or subject of one country in 
the citizen or subject of another, that has strengthened the 
yearning on the part of all peoples for some sort of a temple of 
justice in which kings and nations may be parties, and hearings 
and judgments may take the place of battles and capitulations. 
This feeling, has been rendered stronger and stronger by the 
churches. The missionaries who have been sent out by civilized 
nations into uncivilized portions of the globe have carried the 
doctrine of the brotherhood of man into actual deeds of mercy 
and assistance. These missionaries have been nothing but the 
forerunners of civilization in the parts which they have visited, 
and the function that they have played in the spread of civiliza¬ 
tion, everyone familiar with the Orient and the non-Christian 
parts of the world can testify. 

The same spirit which prompts the sending of missionaries 
into distant parts of the globe to aid the less progressive inhab¬ 
itants of those sections is the spirit which is roused to enthusi¬ 
asm and energetic action in the promotion of effective means 
for delaying war or making it less frequent and of promoting 
peace. 

There are a few things that ought to be said with reference to 
the spirit in which we approach plans for the settlement of 
controversies without resort to war. In the first place, if we in¬ 
sist upon a plan in which we are always likely to win the con¬ 
troversy, the plan will not probably approve itself to the person 
or nation with whom w^e propose to make the agreement. If 
we are afraid to submit to an impartial tribunal, lest we may 
lose our case, then we would better go back to w^ar as the only 
means of settling international controversies when negotiation 


48 


Arbitration. 


fails. When we enter into an arbitration, or an agreement to 
submit our differences to an impartial tribunal, we must “ play 
the game.” We must be willing to lose, as we are anxious to 
win. It is like the old orthodox view that “ we must be willing 
to be damned in order that we may be saved.” Therefore, it 
seems to me of much importance that in considering what ought 
to be done, and what can be done in constituting an interna¬ 
tional court for the settlement of international differences, the 
parties should come to feel that the court is for the purpose of 
settling, one way or the other, real international differences, the 
settlement of which will be a great disappointment to one or the 
other of the parties. It is generally quite impossible for a court 
to decide a case so that both parties shall like the decision, and 
a court to decide between nations can not find it any more easy 
than a domestic court to do this. We can not make omelets 
without breaking eggs; we can not submit international ques¬ 
tions to arbitration without the prospect of losing, and if arbi¬ 
tration is to be effected, and is to cover the ground that shall 
really promote the cause of peace and prevent war, it must 
cover questions of the utmost interest to both countries, and 
therefore the loss of one country in the contest must be of 
course a serious matter to that country; and when it comes into 
an agreement for arbitration it must be willing to face the dis¬ 
appointment that comes from a serious loss thus imposed by an 
arbitral decision. If the subject of arbitration is merely for 
discussion in peace societies, and is only for the purpose of fur¬ 
nishing a text for an address like that I am delivering to you, 
and if the result is not to mean real victory for one party and 
real defeat for the other, certainly the time of diplomatic offi¬ 
cers, who have many other things to do, ought not to be wasted 
on it. 

I am very serious in my advocacy of arbitration as a means 
of settling international disputes, and I believe that you are. 

I am willing to abide an adverse decision in a court of arbi¬ 
tration for my own country, even though it may impose a 
serious loss upon her, if the system of arbitration is to be made 
permanent and the court is of such a character that when I 
have just cause I can count on receiving a just judgment. 

I emphasize these things because as between individuals in 


Arbitration. 


49 


society we differentiate with clearness between the strength 
and the weakness of a man’s claim in his contest with others 
in civil society; but when we come to discuss national affairs 
and the interest of our country we are all prone to take up the 
cry “For my country always! May she always be right; but, 
whether right or wrong, for my country! ” Now, where war is 
the only method of arbitrament, it is impracticable for one 
citizen to set up against the draft that may be made upon him 
by his country to sustain her in a war that her cause is not a just 
one; but supposing war to be out of the question, we should 
have no objection to submitting our claims to a just court, and 
we ought to abide in peace its judgment that we do not have a 
just cause, however hurtful it may be to our national pride and 
however prejudicial to our national pecuniary or material in¬ 
terest. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, if we are going 
into the arbitration game, if I may call it such, we must play it 
through to the end, and we must take our hard knocks with 
equanimity, as we expect others to take theirs, with the hope 
and knowledge that the disadvantages that may accrue to each 
party can never equal the horrible losses, the cruelty, and the 
wickedness of war. 

We have made progress among the nations in the cause of 
peace. At the instance of the Emperor of Russia The Hague 
conferences were held and The Hague tribunal established. 
This was, of course, with exceptions and conditions and provi¬ 
sions, all of which limit the kinds of cases that go into that 
court, and so we can not say that there is a general provision 
for the arbitration of all questions between nations, but there is 
the machinery, there is a basis upon which future action can 
be taken, and we may look forward with reasonable hope to an 
enlargement of the office of The Hague court until after a while 
it shall be a general international court, in which all nations 
shall be willing to put their claims and their defenses for con¬ 
sideration and decision. Heretofore agreements for arbitra¬ 
tion generally excepted questions of national honor and of 
vital interest. It has always seemed to me that these excep¬ 
tions were so broad that they excluded a great many important 
questions that might just as well be arbitrated as any other, and 
so I suggested last year that I would be willing to take the re- 

7994_11- 4 


50 


Arbitration. 


sponsibility as President of initiating a treaty with one or more 
important governments for the arbitration of all international 
differences, even though they did include those of national 
honor and of vital interest. That was a public declaration and 
it was soon publicly accepted both by England and France. 
Negotiations were caried on with a full knowledge of both coun¬ 
tries, and after an agreement was reached a synopsis of it was 
issued by the Secretary of State, and the nations concerned and 
the world generally know the substance of the treaties. After 
some months in the preparation of the exact language it was 
submitted to the Senate. 

The treaties provide that all questions that are justiciable aris¬ 
ing between England and this country and France and this 
country shall be arbitrated and submitted either to The Hague 
or some other international court. That the question shall be 
justiciable as defined in the first clause of the treaty—first, it 
must be between the two countries to the treaty; second, it must 
relate to an international matter; third, both parties must be 
concerned in the matter; fourth, the concern of the complaining 
nation must be based upon a claim of right under a treaty or 
otherwise; fifth, the difference must be capable of being ad¬ 
justed by the application of the rules of law and equity, domes¬ 
tic or international. If all these elements are found to exist in 
respect to the difference between the two nations, then it is an 
arbitral difference within the meaning of Article I of the treaty. 
If the two powers can not agree that a specific difference be¬ 
tween them is arbitrable, then provision is made for the appoint¬ 
ment of a commission to consist of three representatives of one 
power and three representatives of the other, who are to meet 
and consider what the difference is, whether it can be ended by 
negotiation, to recommend a solution, if possible, and if not, 
then to determine whether the issue is arbitrable, and if five- 
sixths of the commission—that is, three of one side and two of 
the other—shall agree that it is arbitrable, then it is to be sub¬ 
mitted under the form prepared in the treaty to arbitration 
under a special agreement, which, in the case of the United 
States, is to be signed by the Executive and concurred in by the 
Senate. 


Arbitration. 


51 


I would have been willing myself to provide that all differ¬ 
ences of opinion on international matters should be submitted 
to a court of arbitration for its decision, and to have left it to the 
court itself to say whether the difference arising could be prop¬ 
erly settled by arbitration. In other words, I believe in arbitra¬ 
tion to a point that 1 am willing to arbitrate anything in which I 
believe I have a good cause, and if I don’t believe I have a good 
cause I wish to give it up in advance of arbitration. But public 
opinion is perhaps not so far advanced as this, and therefore 
the commission plan was devised by which the question of the 
arbitrable character of the controversy was left to a joint high 
commission, consisting of three representatives of each party, it 
being supposed that neither party would feel itself in danger 
of an unjust decision as to the arbitrable character of a differ¬ 
ence in a tribunal in which three of the persons were their own 
fellow citizens appointed by their Executive, and in our case 
with the consent of the Senate. 

Having completed the two treaties with England and France, 
1 submitted them to the Senate for their advice and consent to 
my ratification of them. Of course I could have called the Sen¬ 
ate in advance of the making of the treaties, and it would not 
have been a departure from the proper method for me to have 
learned in advance the action the Senate might take upon such 
a question. But I had myself publicly declared my willingness 
to initiate such a treaty, and so far as my authority went to 
carry it to a successful negotiation. It did not seem wise, 
therefore, to submit the matter to the Senate until after it had 
taken definite form, and until after we had found that the other 
countries were willing to join us in such treaties. Now, I freely 
concede that it is within the power of the Senate in its function 
of advising and consenting to the treaties, either to reject them 
or to amend them. They do not amend the treaties, strictly 
speaking, they merely continue the negotiation by suggesting 
another form to be submitted to the other party to the treaty, 
and that I understand is what the Foreign Belations Committee 
of the Senate has done, to wit, it has stricken out the third 
clause, vesting the commission of six commissioners, three 
from each side, with the power to determine whether differ- 


52 


Arbitration. 


ences are arbitrable within the meaning of the first section, and 
to bind both countries when the vote is five out of six in the 
commission to the acceptance of a judgment by arbitration 
upon such issue. I think this is a very important part of the 
treaty. I think it is one of those pledges of good faith in enter¬ 
ing into the treaty that is essential to take it a step forward in 
the adjustment of international controversies. When we agree 
that we will submit all justiciable controversies to the judgment 
of an arbitration, and decline to allow anybody to decide what 
is justiciable except ourselves, we give little sanction or pledge 
in advance of our willingness and anxiety to settle all possible 
controversies by arbitration. The treaty then is likely to be¬ 
come a mere expression of a desire to arbitrate where we think 
we can arbitrate without losing, and where our material or 
other interests will not suffer by defeat, or where the case is so 
clear that we are certain to win. At least this is the opportunity 
it affords when we reserve to ourselves the right to decide what 
we regard as justiciable when the case arises. If this is to be 
a real advance, then we must be willing to risk something in 
making the treaty. 

But it is said that we are asking the Senate, in consenting to 
the ratification of these treaties, to abdicate some of their func¬ 
tions. I confess I follow this claim with very little sympathy or 
acquiescence. The Senate is part of the treaty-making power 
of the country. A treaty is a contract. It is an agreement by 
which, if the Government of the United States is a party, those 
who represent it may bind it to a certain course of action in 
the future. That is involved in the power to make a treaty 
itself. A contract—a treaty—is a stipulation as to the future 
\ conduct of those who enter into it. Now, if we have power to 
enter into arbitration, we have the power to agree to enter into 
arbitration under conditions that are described in the treaty, 
and as we have the right to leave the interests of the country to 
a judgment of the court, to which it is submitted by agree¬ 
ment, we certainly have the right to submit to that court to 
decide whether the particular instance and difference which 
has arisen, or shall arise in the future, is within the descrip¬ 
tion of the treaty and of the obligation which we entered into 


Arbitration. 


53 


in the treaty. To say that this is an abdication of the func¬ 
tions of the Senate is to say that it is not the function of the 
Senate to make an agreement at all which shall bind the Gov¬ 
ernment. I have no desire to minimize in the slightest degree 
the importance of the Senate as part of the treaty-making 
power. I have no desire to minimize its importance in the 
framework of the Government which the drafters of the Con¬ 
stitution founded. It furnishes a second legislative Chamber 
of Members, with a six years’ tenure, which insures a proper 
check in the sober consideration of legislation sent over to it 
by the House of Representatives, and it properly divides with 
the Executive the power and responsibility of shaping our in¬ 
ternational relations. But when the prerogatives of the Senate 
are spoken of, the term “ prerogative ” does not make the power 
which it intends the Senate has any more sacred than the 
power of the Executive in respect to the same subject matter. 
If the Executive and the Senate acting together may make a 
contract of submission to arbitration, there is very little limita¬ 
tion upon the scope of the questions which they have power to 
submit. The treaty-making power is a very broad one, and it 
is not straining it in the slightest to include within it the power 
to make a treaty of arbitration, by which a certain class of 
questions described in the treaty are to be submitted to arbi¬ 
tration, and by which the power shall be committed to a tri¬ 
bunal of arbitration to decide whether future instances arising 
are within the class described in the treaty or not. 

I had hoped that the treaties, when submitted to the Senate, 
would meet with early ratification and concurrence. In this I 
have been disappointed, but I do not wish to be put in an atti¬ 
tude of expressing impatience at a proper deliberation by the 
Senate on matters of so great importance as this. On the con¬ 
trary, I urge such delay and deliberation, because I am con¬ 
vinced that longer consideration will satisfy the Members of the 
Senate that the chief objection which seems to be made to the 
third clause of the treaty has no weight in it whatever. Of 
course, there is a difference between the argument directed to 
whether the Senate has the power to submit to a commission 
the question whether a difference is arbitrable or not, and the 


54 


Arbitration. 


policy of doing so. I confess myself unable to find any just 
argument upon which a defect in the power of the Senate for 
this purpose can he urged. 

The policy of the matter presents a somewhat different issue 
and makes me recur to the subject matter of my remarks earlier 
in this address. If we are in earnest in favor of arbitration, and 
hope to make it a means of dispensing with war and of settling 
real controversies, then we must be willing to risk defeat in 
arbitration, and on important matters, as we may earnestly 
hope for success, and I, for one, in my profound desire to find 
some means of avoiding the awful cost and horrors of war, am 
ready to run the risk and go fully to the point of submitting im¬ 
portant international differences to a tribunal where we may 
win or lose. 

I venture thus, my friends, to point out the differences that 
may arise between the Executive and the Senate in this matter. 
That an agreement may be reached, of course, I sincerely hope. 
The powers of the Senate, as well as those of the Executive, are 
all derived from the people. Neither is more sacred than the 
other. As I have already said, I am the last person to minimize 
the importance of the Senate’s retaining its constitutional 
powers, and of its refusing to abdicate any function which that 
instrument gives it. I think its sensitiveness in regard to its 
power ought to be respected and not criticized or made light of, 
because if the balance of power in the Constitution between the 
Executive and the Senate and the House of Representatives 
and the judiciary is to be maintained, one of the chief hopes of 
its maintenance lies in the assertion of each branch of what 
its powers are and its refusal to abate any of them. Still, if the 
Senate, or any Members of it, should think that its powers are 
greater or less than they are, and the limitations they insist 
upon interfere with progress toward peace, or any other great 
national or international policy, the question whether they are 
right or not must ultimately be referred back to the people 
whose representatives the Members of the Senate are, for we 
all, as I say, have derived our powers from the people, as the 
ultimate source of power, and in case of disagreement the 
proper place for discussion of such an issue is before the people. 


Arbitration. 


55 


The cause is sufficiently great to warrant the straining of effort 
to secure treaties like those which make for international peace. 
If I am wrong in my judgment, and I do not claim infallibility, 
and know that the enthusiasm of the cause may sometimes 
warp judgment, I am quite willing to abide the ultimate judg¬ 
ment of the people; but I deem it my duty, until I shall receive 
an adverse decision, to urge my views upon the Senate, and to 
invoke the attention of the people to these questions and such 
expression of opinion by them as shall influence a ratification 
of the treaties as they were signed. 


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT TAFT TO THE GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC 
AT CONVENTION HALL, ROCHESTER, N. Y., AUGUST 23, 1911. 

Men of the Grand Army: I thank you for this invitation to be 
present at your annual encampment. I was present at your an¬ 
nual meeting in Toledo three years ago, and I am always glad, 
when opportunity offers, to testify to my high appreciation of 
your body as a civic organization of the greatest usefulness. I 
say “ civic organization,” for it certainly is not now a military 
organization, although it was organized to keep in fresh and 
sacred memory the deeds of the greatest military organization 
that probably ever existed—the Grand Army of the Republic 
as it was in 1865. 

I congratulate you that there are no politics in the Grand 
Army; that you are a nonpartisan body, and that each man 
votes his sentiments without fear or the influence of his fellows. 
1 am glad to know that, important as the body is, widespread as 
is its membership through the country, no suggestions of outside 
influence are permitted to have weight in your councils or the 
selection of your leaders. 

I hope you may continue to have meetings as long as there are 
two survivors of your host, and then that, in the Sons of Vet¬ 
erans, may be continued the traditions of courage, patriotism, 
and self-sacrifice, liberty, fraternity, and loyalty, that mark 
your present organization. 

It is now half a century since the conflict of arms began in 
which one half of this country was arrayed against the other 
half. In this annual gathering of the survivors of the men who 
in that contest fought to preserve the Union and to unite again 
the contending forces, one becomes necessarily reminiscent of 
the conditions that prevailed before the war began, and in the 
retrospect marks the wonderful change in our national condi¬ 
tions which this 50 years have witnessed. 

How dark must have been the outlook of any lover of his 
country, whether he lived in the North or in the South, who 
56 


Arbitration. 


57 


understood or measured the depth of the conviction of the 
North as to the necessity for maintaining the Union without 
slavery, or the conviction of the South as to the importance of 
sustaining slavery as an economic institution and State rights 
as a principle of constitutional construction! 

For years the cleavage had manifested itself in Congress, in 
politics, and in society, and Lincoln’s declaration that the 
country could not remain half free and half slave crystallized 
the sentiment of those who saw clearly the inevitable tendency 
of public opinion in the North and in the South. How dis¬ 
couraged must have been the philosophers of those days who 
sought for some peaceful solution, or a solution by arms which 
would not so rend the country as to destroy the possibility of 
its great future! The problem seemed insoluble, and yet we 
have worked it out. It was done by a tremendous war, a con¬ 
flict that developed an unsuspected strength on both sides—an 
energy and courage in the North and brave power of resistance 
to the uttermost in the South. It is pointed out that the re¬ 
sources of the North exceeded those of the South. That is 
doubtless true, but the problem that the North had was affirma¬ 
tive; the problem that the South had was negative. The prob¬ 
lem of the North was “ capture, tranquillization, and reunion 
the problem of the South was “ resistance ” only. What states¬ 
man, what prophet in the dark days of the fifties and 1860 and 
1861 could look forward from a Nation of 30,000,000, rent by 
this fundamental cause of difference and driven into bloody 
contest, to a Nation to-day of 90,000,000, with a prosperity, a 
wealth per capita, and a condition of comfort for the individual, 
and an equality of opportunity that has never been equaled in 
the world? When we contemplate what we have lived through 
and what has been accomplished, it ought to encourage us to 
feel that the problems before us are slight in comparison with 
those we have solved; and here, in the presence of the survivors 
of those men who saved the country and helped to solve that 
problem 50 years ago, I would draw a lesson that, it seems to 
me, is of the utmost usefulness in times like these. Our very 
prosperity and the accumulation of our wealth have brought 
other problems, elusive and difficult in their settlement, and 
have prompted a higher civic ambition with reference to the 


58 


Arbitration. 


condition of the individual and his equality of opportunity, 
and with reference to use of wealth by its owners and restric¬ 
tions upon methods of use unduly oppressive to competitors 
and to the public at large. 

These higher aims for the betterment of society, these new 
evils growing out of the concentration of wealth, and these com¬ 
binations which, properly controlled, are a great good in the re¬ 
duction of the cost of production, have invited from the active- 
minded of to-day suggestions of reform that are so extreme that 
the medicine to many of us seems worse than the disease. 
Those who are charged with the responsibility and sobered with 
the difficulties find ourselves in the middle of the road resisting 
the tendency to socialism on the one hand and the inertia of 
reactionary contentment with present evils and ambition for 
greater concentration of financial power on the other; but we 
are gradually solving the problem. The present does not bring 
difficulties as great as you had to meet and overcome in ’61. It 
may be a longer fight, because it will not involve violence or the 
shedding of blood, but it must and will be solved peacefully and 
by the earnest effort of the level-headed, the practical, and the 
courageous among us, and by reducing the influence of the dem¬ 
agogue and theoretical extremists on the one hand and the re¬ 
actionary influence of combinations of wealth on politics and 
progress on the other. Its solution will be consistent with the 
preservation of our ancient institutions of personal liberty and 
private property under the Constitution. The message that you 
bear, with your experience and your success, to those of us 
struggling now with the problem is that, however dark at times 
the situation seems, so long as we retain in this country a God¬ 
fearing, sober, intelligent people, we can count in the long run 
upon their working out safely and sanely the problems set be¬ 
fore them, no matter how many mistakes in the form of nos¬ 
trums they may be led into by the speciousness of half-baked 
theories of progress, no matter how often they may have been 
defeated in their purpose by the temporary success of undue 
influence of concentrated wealth. 

Such anniversaries as these of the heroes that survived the 
awful conflict of 1861 to 1865 are useful in many ways. In the 
first place, they must give to you who participate an intense joy 


Arbitration. 


59 


in the quickening of the bond of common recollection and asso¬ 
ciation formed in those days of strife of the past, when you all 
were exposed to the dangers of the battlefield, and only part 
lived to tell the tale. In the next place, such a union and dem¬ 
onstration furnish a lesson to the youth of the country, and 
prompt them to a willingness to enlist in her support whenever 
new exigencies shall arise calling for the sacrifice; and, finally, 
it revives through the Nation at large the useful recollection of 
the difficulties through which the country has come, and over 
which it has triumphed, and gives new courage and new hope 
to those who are struggling with present difficulties. This 
thought has come to me time and time again since I have had 
the responsibility of the Presidency; and when there seemed 
troubles and burdens that were hard to bear my mind has 
reverted to those which Lincoln carried, and in comparison with 
his sad mental struggles, mine have seemed boyish and of little 
weight. 

But I did not come here, my friends, to discuss the state of 
the Nation at large, and these remarks of mine are made only 
as an introduction to the subject of arbitration and peace. 

You are here to commemorate the fact of war and the sacri¬ 
fice that war made necessary and the success that attended 
your struggles in battle. But you are not here to praise war 
or to advocate its continuance. You are the first to admit that 
the awful horrors that are inevitable in war should be avoided 
if possible. You know better than those of us who have had no 
experience how dreadful it is, what cruelties it involves, what 
painful sacrifices on the part of mother, and wife, and daughter 
it entails. You can not be blind to ihe devilish instincts it ex¬ 
cites, to the corruption and demoralization that follow in its 
train. These things you know by actual experience, and this it 
is that makes you an audience to whom appeals in behalf of 
progress toward universal peace can be properly made. 

Of course every sensible man knows that if no other means 
is furnished for the settlement of international controversies 
but negotiation, the time is likely to come when that means 
will fail, and then war will ensue. The nations of the globe, 
especially those in close proximity to each other, are armed 


60 


Arbitration. 


to the teeth and with the most expensive modern armament, 
to be ready, when the possibility of other settlement shall have 
passed, to defend themselves and injure their opponents. The 
cost of modern armament is so great and the cataclysmic effect 
of modern Avars is so pronounced that I believe them to be 
less frequent than in the past, and in this way the preparations 
for war have possibly reduced its probability rather than in¬ 
creased it. But we can be confident that war Avill not disappear 
unless some method is furnished which shall satisfactorily 
settle the differences that must in the nature of things arise 
between the nations of the world. Of course, between individ¬ 
uals in a community the differences which arise are settled in 
courts. We have now treaties for arbitration which are made 
for the purpose of settling controversies that arise betAveen us 
and other countries, but there are exceptions in the description 
of the differences that are to be arbitrated under those treaties 
which exclude questions of honor and Antal interest. I need not 
stop to discuss the meaning of those terms except to say that 
they are Avide enough to exclude from the effect of the treaties 
many questions that may arise betAveen nations which are more 
likely to produce Avar than the questions included in the 
treaties. I ventured last year and the year before in one or 
two public addresses to express the opinion that there was no 
reason Avhy such questions could not be arbitrated as other 
questions. This expression at length aAvakened a cordial re¬ 
sponse both in England and in France, and it has led to the 
negotiation of tAvo treaties—one with England and one with 
France. Those treaties have gone to the Senate and are now 
under consideration in that body. The majority of the Com¬ 
mittee on Foreign Relations has reported in favor of an amend¬ 
ment to the treaties, and a minority is in favor of their adoption 
as they are, Avith a possible suggestion in the act of ratification 
as to their construction. I do not come before you in opposition 
to the Senate, and I do not Avish to criticize the majority of 
the committee that has reported an amendment. I am only 
anxious to promote as full a public discussion of the ques¬ 
tions now arising in respect to the confirmation of the treaties 
as possible, because I feel confident that a public discussion 
of the matter, followed by popular expression, Avill aid much 


Arbitration. 


61 


in the clarification of the subject in the Senate itself, and will 
lead to convincing a majority of that body, and perhaps all, 
of the wisdom of the prompt ratification of the treaties as they 
were signed. I am especially anxious to emphasize the fact 
that I do not wish to be put in antagonism to the Senate. I am 
one of those who greatly admire the plan of government devised 
by our forefathers in the Constitution. I think that one of the 
most admirable features in that framework is the Senate of the 
United States, with its various functions. I should be the last, 
therefore, to seek to deprive the Senate of any of the powers 
given to it by the Constitution. If after full consideration and 
calm discussion the Senate shall take a different course from 
the one I urge, of course, like a law-abiding citizen, I shall cheer¬ 
fully acquiesce in their judgment. But while this is my attitude, 
1 do not think that it is improper for me, until the matter is 
settled, to urge ratification, to meet as best I can the arguments 
advanced against it, and respectfully to question a limitation 
upon the power of the Senate, which is made the basis for the 
contention that the Senate can not properly ratify and confirm 
these treaties. In other words, I am contending for larger pow¬ 
ers in the making of these treaties on the part of the Senate than 
some Members of the Senate and of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations are willing to admit. 

The first clause of the treaties binds the parties to submit 
either to The Hague or some other court of arbitration “ all 
justiciable differences hereafter arising” between them, and 
provides that the submission of the question, when it arises, 
shall be by special agreement of the President of the United 
States, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and by Eng¬ 
land or France in accordance with their constitutional pro¬ 
visions. The second article provides for the organization of a 
joint high commission, to consist of three of the subjects or 
citizens of one of the countries and three of the other. At the 
request of either party any controversy between them may be 
referred to this commission for investigation and recommen¬ 
dation before it has been submitted to arbitration. The refer¬ 
ence may be postponed until one year after the formal request 
has been made, in order to afford an opportunity for diplo¬ 
matic discussion and adjustment of the questions. The report 


62 


Arbitration. 


of the joint high commission is to be advisory and not conclu¬ 
sive on either party in respect of all the questions that they pass 
upon, except one. That is where there is a difference between 
the parties as to whether the question at issue is subject to arbi¬ 
tration under the first clause or not. If so, and five out of six 
members of the commission decide that it is justiciable and so 
arbitrable under the first clause, then both parties are bound 
by that decision. 

I have thus stated the nub of the treaties. They have been 
signed, and nothing awaits their going into force except the 
ratification of the Senate. I do not contend that if we make 
treaties war is to disappear. I do not contend that war will 
be absolutely impossible between the countries that make the 
treaties, because treaties have been violated, and you can not 
always foresee what a country in convulsions of fury may do; 
but I do contend that such treaties as these make war much less 
probable between the countries, and that as an example to other 
countries they suggest the wisdom of similar treaties, and thus 
furnish hope of general progress toward a condition in which 
war is generally less probable. 

The evil of war and what follows in its train I need not dwell 
upon. The slightest acquaintance with history makes that 
known. We could not have a higher object than the adoption 
of any proper means which lessens the chance of war. 

Those who have objected to the treaty have first suggested 
that the organization of the joint high commission, with the 
power given to either party to secure a reference of a contro¬ 
versy to it, for consideration for a year, makes it a breeder of 
war. I confess myself unable to follow the force of such an 
argument. Delay always cools the blood of individuals and 
nations. Discussion somewhat drawn out postpones the prob¬ 
ability of violence and force. The level headed on both sides 
find in postponement of an issue and a crisis the best instru¬ 
ment for reducing the heat of a quarrel or the resentment at 
a fancied insult. Nothing so subdues the truculent spirit as the 
strain of long waiting to give it ratification. 

But the main and chief objection, if I understand it, to the 
treaty is that the Senate can not agree to abide the judgment of 
a joint high commission like this as to whether a difference be- 


Arbitration. 


63 


tween the two countries comes under the description contained 
in the first clause, and is, therefore, arbitrable. By doing so, it 
is said the Senate will in some way part with the power con¬ 
ferred upon it by the Constitution, and which it is forbidden to 
delegate. It is clear that the Senate may agree to arbitrate a 
class of questions in advance of their arising in the future. At 
least, the present Senate can hardly dispute this, for it has 
already made many treaties in which it has agreed to arbitrate 
all questions except certain classes which are specified. If it 
has the right to agree to arbitration in the future upon any class 
of questions, and be bound by such an agreement, it is impos¬ 
sible to escape the conclusion that it may be bound to arbitrate 
the question of the construction of a treaty in the future, for 
such a question is one of the most frequent in actual practice 
that arises in international controversies. Now the issue 
whether a question arising is within the class described in the 
first section of the treaty is a question arising in the construc¬ 
tion of the treaty. In what respect, therefore, is the power of 
the Senate limited to make an agreement on this subject? 

Of course the question of power is one thing and the. wisdom 
of exercising it is another. If the Senate thinks it unwise to 
consent to submit such a thing to arbitration, then the argu¬ 
ment is upon the wisdom. Why is it unwise? Here are three 
men selected from one country and three from another to 
constitute this commission. They devote themselves to the 
investigation of the question. Is it likely that two out of three 
Americans or two out of three Englishmen or two out of three 
Frenchmen will consent that a question is arbitrable as against 
its own country if in fact it is not clearly so? How much real 
risk, therefore, is run by the Senate in consenting that five-sixths 
of the commission may decide a question of construction of the 
treaty? The importance of retaining the provision is, however, 
to give a pledge and sanction of the good faith of both parties in 
entering into the treaty and the real hope that it may avoid war. 
It is a self-denying arrangement. It assumes that the countries 
may be anxious to avoid arbitration, or that one of them may 
be, and it leaves this question to another tribunal than the 
country itself, to another judge than one of the parties, to de- 


64 


Arbitration. 


cide. If this is not done, and it is left to the parties to decide 
whether any issue comes under the first clause, the treaty is 
not very binding, because a strong motive present in the mind 
of either party to avoid arbitration of the particular issue will 
prompt every plausible objection by it that the matter is not 
arbitrable, and thus will prove fatal to the operation of the 
treaty upon the question. In other words, the treaty would 
become, in effect, then, only a general statement in favor of 
arbitration as a means of settling difficulties without effective 
obligation. 

We wish to make progress—real progress—we wish to enter 
into a contract that binds us to something. We can not expect 
to win all our arbitrations; we can not expect to have an arbi¬ 
tration when we would and reject it when we would not, just 
because we think we might lose. If the arbitration method is 
to become useful at all, it must involve obligations by both 
parties to submit questions when they would rather not submit 
them. To make a contract under which we are able to do as we 
like in the future is to make no contract at all. It is a mere 
declaration of present willingness, with such a reservation as 
would enable us to follow our future desires as we will. It is 
Ibis submission to another tribunal of the definite question 
whether the first clause includes the issue which has arisen and 
the agreement to abide the judgment that gives substance and 
weight to the treaty. 

Norway and Sweden have entered into an agreement to arbi¬ 
trate certain questions, with certain exceptions, and they have 
agreed that the Board of Arbitration may decide conclusively 
for the parties whether the question arising comes within the 
exceptions or the general rule contained in the treaty itself. I 
would be willing to go that far, and to leave to the Board of Ar¬ 
bitration itself the question whether the issue arising is within 
the first clause of the treaty. We find its complete analogy in 
the power of domestic courts to determine whether the question 
brought before it is within its own jurisdiction. 

Here, lest there might be sensitiveness in giving to the arbi¬ 
trators this full power to determine their own jurisdiction, 
another tribunal, consisting only of persons selected from the 
countries involved, was created to determine the question, and 


• Arbitration. 


65 


a vote of five out of six was required before the decision should 
be binding. It is a concession to the spirit of the objection made 
in the Senate to the third clause—the spirit that hesitates to 
make a real agreement to arbitrate anything in the future lest 
in some way we may lose a controversy. I am bound to admit 
that submission to a commission constituted as this one is is 
not the greatest step that could be taken, but it is a step in the 
right direction, toward a settlement of questions under a con¬ 
tract that has some binding force and sanction, and does not 
depend for its usefulness entirely upon the concurring willing¬ 
ness in the future of parties to abide by their own agreement. 

These treaties, if ratified, will do much toward establishing 
arbitration as the means of settling all international difficulties. 
It would be a great misfortune if \ve were not able to avail 
ourselves of the opportunity which offers. I do not doubt we 
shall be able to negotiate with many other countries similar 
treaties, if these are confirmed by the Senate. 

Objection has been made to the agreement of this treaty that 
under the first section it might be claimed that we would be 
called upon to submit to arbitration the Monroe doctrine, 
our right to exclude foreign peoples from our shores, or the 
question of the validity of the southern bonds issued in recon¬ 
struction days. These suggestions have nothing in them. The 
question of the Monroe policy is not a justiciable one. It is one 
of purely governmental policy which we have followed for a 
century, and which the countries of Europe have generally 
acquiesced in. With respect to this very matter, Sir Edward 
Grey, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, has announced 
publicly that the Monroe policy could not be disputed by them 
under this treaty, and would not come within its terms. 

With respect to the exclusion of immigrants, it is a principle 
of international law that each country may admit of the persons 
who come to its shores those whom it chooses to have admitted 
and may reject the others. This is a subject of domestic policy 
which no foreign country can interfere in, unless provisions in 
a treaty affect the question, and then it may become properly 
a question of treaty construction and obligation. In the absence 
of a treaty, it is not an arbitrable question. 

7994—11-5 


66 


Arbitration. • 


With reference to the right to involve the United States in a 
controversy over the obligation of certain Southern States to 
pay bonds issued during reconstruction, which have been re¬ 
pudiated, it is sufficient to say that such a question would not 
come within the treaty, for the treaty only affects “ cases here¬ 
after arising,” and the cases of the southern bonds, all arose 
years ago. These instances are cited to show the lack of 
wisdom in entering into the treaty. I refer to them to show 
that we would not be embarrassed in the slightest in respect 
to them by this treaty, because by its terms they are excluded 
from the scope of the arbitration it provides. 

I think I have considered all the objections that are seriously 
made. I have treated them in a summary manner, but I hope 
my treatment of them is sufficient to set your minds working 
on the issue which is now pending with respect to the treaty, 
and that you may be convinced that the objections are not well 
taken and that the treaty ought to be ratified. 

To the men who have known to their cost the horrors and 
sacrifices of war, to the men to whom the country is under a 
debt of the deepest gratitude for saving the Union—the men 
who were victors in war and yet were the first to make possible 
the union of hearts between the blue and the gray—to the men 
whose greatest leader expressed the national yearning in his 
words, “ Let us have peace,” I appeal to promote the cause of 
peace by approving these treaties and urging their ratification. 

o 


LB N ’ll 































' 
































. ; 



















































































































































































































































































































































































